On 12/13/18 4:25 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
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.
But you haven't answered my question:
Why can't we patch 'lsblk' to provide the required information even with
the current sysfs layout?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
