On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:39:52PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Hm, I thought we were frowning apon running binaries from udev rules >> > these days, especially ones that might have big consequences (like >> > resizing a disk image) like this. >> > >> > Kay, am I right? >> >> We removed most of them from the default setups, yes. But there is >> nothing wrong if people want to ship that in some package or as custom >> rules. >> >> It looks fine to me, we would just not add such things to the default >> set of of rules these days. >> >> > We already emit KOBJECT_CHANGE events when block devices change, from >> > within the block core code. Why is the patch below needed instead of >> > using these events that are already generated? How are virtio block >> > devices special? >> >> I think we only do that for dm and md and a couple of special cases >> like loop and read-only settings. > > What about when we repartition a block device? I've seen the events > happen then. Right, from the common block code we send events for removable media changes like cdroms, sd cards, when a device is switched to read-only, and when we re-scan a partition table like on re-partitioning. Most of the other events are block subsystem-specific like this one. For things like device-mapper they are used pretty heavily. > Anyway, if you are ok with this, no objection from my side then Rusty. Looks fine to me, it should not do any harm if there are not heavy programs hooked up -- which is nothing the kernel could fix if people do that. :) Kay _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
