On Di, 09.04.24 09:17, Jens Axboe (axboe@xxxxxxxxx) 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. Yeah, it's a shitty interface, the kernel is rich in that. But it was excessively well documented, better in fact than almost all other kernel interfaces: → https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.16/block/capability.html ← If you document something on so much detail in the API docs, how do you expect this *not* to be relied on by userspace. Lennart
