On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > Welll ... this is not just 'lsblk', but more importantly this will force > > udev to create _block_ device nodes for the hidden devices, essentially > > 'unhide' them. > > > > Is this what we want? > > Christoph? > > I thought the entire _point_ of having hidden devices is that the are ... > > well ... hidden ... > > Yes, that is why I really don't like the last two patches. > > And I've checked back - lsblk actually works just fine at the moment. > But it turns out once we create the slave links it stops working, > which is a really good argument against the first two patches, which > would otherwise seem nice.. Which is why I have sent the "paths/" patchset in the first place. Because I did some homework and read the previous discussion about this, and how lsblk failure to behave with slave links led to the revert of the slaves/holders patch by Dr. Hannes. Cascardo.
