On 4/16/24 8:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > 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. This is _internal_ documentation, not user ABI documentation. The fact that it's talking about internal flag values should make that clear, though I can definitely see how that's just badly exposed along with other things that document things that users/admins could care about. -- Jens Axboe
