On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:20:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 01:25:33PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > 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. > > Sorry, I did not actually notice that Hannes patch manually created > the same slaves/holders link we otherwise create using the block layer > APIs. Had I realized those actually were the same that had saved > me some work. > > So I guess the v2 paths/ link patch from you is the least of all evils. > Hannes, can you look over that one? No hard feelings. Sorry we had to go through all these messages to make that clear. This should be Message-Id: <20181101232955.19329-1-cascardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> and Hannes was on Cc as well. Regards. Cascardo.
