Re: Discussion: performance issue on event activation mode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 10:55 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:39:52PM +0200, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
> 
> > 
> >   - For event-based activation, we need to be sure that we use
> > "RUN"
> >     rule, not any of "IMPORT{program}" or "PROGRAM" rule. The
> > difference
> >     is that the "RUN" rules are applied after all the other udev
> > rules are
> >     already applied for current uevent, including creation of
> > symlinks. And
> >     currently, we have IMPORT{program}="pvscan..." in our rule,
> >     unfortunately...
> 
> That's pretty subtle, I'm wary about propagating such specific and
> delicate behavior, seems fragile.

I'd like to second Peter here, "RUN" is in general less fragile than
"IMPORT{PROGRAM}". You should use IMPORT{PROGRAM}" if and only if 

 - the invoked program can work with incomplete udev state of a device
   (the progrem should not try to access the device via
   libudev, it should rather get properties either from sysfs or the
   uevent's environment variables)
 - you need the result or the output of the program in order to proceed
   with rules processing.

Regards,
Martin


_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/





[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Kernel Development]     [Linux Clusters]     [Device Mapper]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux