> > 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
