On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 17:45 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:16:27PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 13:32 +0100, Peter Rajnoha wrote: > > > > > > > > What do you think about keeping a single > > > DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG for this, just having a > > > different > > > value, say "2" to denote the B case? Otherwise, we need 2 > > > distinct > > > variables (which is harder for others to accept I bet). > > > > Yes, that could work, if the save / restore is implemented cleanly. > > What if we never read DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG from the > database. Instead how about, if DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG is > set > by "dmsetup udevflags", we save it as something like > DM_IGNORE_DEVICE. > Otherwise, if it's a spurious event, we read DM_IGNORE_DEVICE from > the > database. After "dm_flags_done", if DM_IGNORE_DEVICE is set, we set > DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG. This leaves the other rules free to > mess with DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG all they want. That sounds good and aligns with what I'd thought by myself. But we should use a less suggestive name. DM_IGNORE_DEVICE would again make users think that they should consume this variable, like DM_NOSCAN. Martin
