On 09.04.24 17:17, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/9/24 8:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >>> All I am looking for is a very simple test that returns me a boolean: >>> is there kernel-level partition scanning enabled on this device or >>> not. >> >> And we can add a trivial sysfs attribute for that. > > And I think we should. I don't know what was being smoked adding a sysfs > interface that exposed internal flag values - and honestly what was > being smoked to rely on that, but I think it's fair to say that the > majority of the fuckup here is on the kernel side. > >> At this point we're just better off with a clean new interface. >> And you can use the old hack for < 5.15 if you care strongly enough >> or just talk distros into backporting it to make their lives easier. > > We should arguably just stable mark the patch adding the above simple > interface. I might have missed something, but it seems nothing has happened since a week. Sure, this is hardly a new regression, so it's not that urgent; still it would be good to see this fixed rather sooner than later after all the publicity this got. So allow me to quickly ask: Is anyone (Christoph?) already working on such a patch or is it at least somewhat high on somebody's todo list? Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page. #regzbot poke
