Peter Rajnoha <prajnoha@redhat.com> writes: >> The flag (DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG) is here to direct >> udev processing to skip any scans - it's not actually saying >> everyone else should remove this device now. It's just saying >> "don't access/touch it" when this flag is set. If there was a >> situation where we really need to remove (deactivate) the device, >> we'd do that in lvm2 directly within processing of the device. > > ...simply, the event listener that gets the event with this flag > set should just consider this dm device as "private". Yeah, that's what treating events with the flag as a "remove" event is meant to accomplish. UDisks2 maintains objects on D-Bus corresponding to public udev block devices. When a device changes from public to private, we should remove the corresponding object from D-Bus. The code for that is the same as when UDisks2 receives a "remove" event for the device AFAICS, so we just jump into that code path by changing the event action early on. The alternative is to also create D-Bus objects for private udev block devices, but set UDISKS_IGNORE for them (and rely on its clients to dtrt with that). I think that is what UDisks 1 used to do, but David has choosen not to do this for UDisks2. I can't really judge which approach is better. Do you have an opinion? _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
