Re: bcache-tools package for Fedora / status probe-bcache

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> 
> I'm not a fan of a blkid csum check (I pointed it out on the bug[1]).
> If a superblock gets scribbled or corrupted, you want bcache to
> complain, and you don't want blkid to look for the next possible
> signature.
Having blkid also verify the csum was requested by Karel Zak, the maintainer of util-linux. As a packager of bcache-tools I'm in favour of having blkid identify bcache, but I don't have a preference on using csum to identify bcache. I can pass the message to Karel, but it would be better if we both discuss it on the appropriate (util-linux?) mail list.
> 
>> So now I'm wondering: are there any particular reasons to keep
>> probe-bcache part of the package, or will it really be obsolete?
> 
> If you address the above and tweak the udev rules, why not.
> 
> The upstream repo will need to keep probe-bcache for a while
> longer, because we don't have a way to require a sufficiently
> recent libblkid.

I agree, f20 is a specific case, but in general probe-bcache will be needed for a while.
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001120#c9
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux