Peter Rajnoha <prajnoha@redhat.com> writes: > Thing with setting variables is that we need to rely on others to properly > check this variable - and each variable coming from different subsystems has > a different name. Would be really great if we have a more decent way > how to mark devices as private where with the "private" I mean that it can > be processed only by the subsystem that claims it. I don't know whether it is at all feasible, but what about using something like SUBSYSTEM="proto-block" for devices that are not general purpose block devices (yet). For example, a device mapper node would start out as a proto-block, and could be changed to a block via dmsetup. That would be a fundamental change, though, and might cause more breakage than it helps to clean things up. > For example, even systemd tries to gather this information from > various sources and sets SYSTEMD_READY=0/1 (see also > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/rules/99-systemd.rules.in) > (unfortunately, systemd is not the only one in the world, there are > alternatives, that's why having this info directly in sysfs would make > more sense as it's global). Yeah, but on the other hand, everone might have their own slight variation on what to ignore exactly. For example, systemd seems to ignore encrypted but unformatted block devices for some reason, while the guy who is actually going to format them (maybe UDisks2) probably doesn't want to ignore them. But, yes, it would be good if everyone could start from a sane setup and then add exceptions to it. _______________________________________________ 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/
