On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 05:10:02PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 16:59, Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 15:30, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Milan Broz <mbroz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> Maybe, but this was not invented in DM/MD camp:-)
> >> >> Probably Kay or Greg can answer why it was done this way?
> >>
> >> It's not from Greg or Kay. It just appeared some day in the context of dm. :)
> >>
> >> And yes, symlinks *look* nice and simple for the outside, but they are
> >> not, and have all sorts of problems like non-atomic updates, make it
> >
> > ÂSounds like sysfs implementation problem, right?
>
> It's a normal multi-file problem. It can by-definition not be atomic
> without doing really weird locking things.
BTW, lsblk(8) and libblkid don't depend on the fact that slaves/holders
files are symlinks.
The important thing is the filename (/sys/block/.../slaves/<name>)
only. We don't follow the symlinks and we don't use readlink() there.
It means that you can replace the symlinks with regular files where
in the file contents is for example maj:min, etc.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
