On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:09:00AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: [..] > > > True, but if kpartx + udev can make this transparent then I don't > > > think users lose any functionality. They just gain a device-mapper > > > dependency. > > > > So udev rules will trigger when a /dev/pmemX device shows up and run > > kpartx which in turn will create dm-linear devices and device nodes > > will show up in /dev/mapper/pmemXpY. > > > > IOW, /dev/pmemXpY device nodes will be gone. So if any of the scripts or > > systemd unit files are depenent on /dev/pmemXpY, these will still be > > broken out of the box and will have to be modified to use device nodes > > in /dev/mapper/ directory instead. Do I understand it right, Or I missed > > the idea completely. > > No, I'd write the udev rule to create links from /dev/pmemXpY to the > /dev/mapper device, and that rule would be gated by a new pmem device > attribute to trigger when kpartx needs to run vs the kernel native > partitions. Got it. This sounds much better. Vivek
