Hello, On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 02:58:23PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > On 01/13/2011 02:37 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > So, just don't do it. Sysfs is for device hierarchy. Don't try to > > shove pretty looking things there (unless it's something widely agreed > > on and necessary, of course). > > I think that it is exactly what holders/slaves do - displaying device > hierarchy. So application can check which underlying device are related > and ask them for more info if needed (=> with system specific call, > it can be simple sysfs attribute, ioctl, whatever). Yeah, sure but in a completely unrestrained and non-standard way. First of all, it wasn't even necessary to begin with and I don't really see anyone else other than md/dm using it. I mean, where are you gonna you put that slaves directory? Sure you can put it somewhere but really it would be just that - somewhere. All this doesn't even matter. It wasn't even necessary to begin with. > So the only request here is to keep these symlinks correct, nothing more. > Or am I missing anything? Yeah, I'm fixing that. Don't worry. I just wanna say it wasn't such a brilliant idea to add it in the first place and hope that people would restrain from doing similar things in the future. So, as a general rule, when in doubt, just create an attribute. Let's refrain from custom symlinkery in sysfs, please. In this case too, a holder attribute containing strings like ext[3|4], md, dm or whatnot would have been _much_ simpler and actually more useful. Thank you. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
