On Di, 16.04.24 08:22, Jens Axboe (axboe@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > 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. The text begins with: "This file documents the sysfs file block/<disk>/capability." So it makes very clear this is about the sysfs interface. Are you saying that sysfs of the block layer should be considered an *internal* kernel API? That's a wild definition, if I may say so. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin
