On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 11:47:09 -0400 Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/13/23 12:46, Coly Li wrote: > > Utility udisks is removed from udev upstream, calling this obsoleted > > command in run_udisks() doesn't make any sense now. > > > > This patch removes the calls chain of udisks, which includes routines > > run_udisk(), force_remove(), and 2 locations where force_remove() are > > called. Considering force_remove() is removed with udisks util, it is > > fair to remove Manage_stop() inside force_remove() as well. > > > > In the two modifications where calling force_remove() are removed, > > the failure from Manage_subdevs() can be safely ignored, because, > > 1) udisks doesn't exist, no need to check the return value to umount > > the file system by udisks and remove the component disk again. > > 2) After the 'I' inremental remove, there is another 'r' hot remove > > following up. The first incremental remove is a best-try effort. > > > > Therefore in this patch, where force_remove() is removed, the return > > value of calling Manage_subdevs() is not checked too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Changelog, > > v5: change Mariusz's email address as he suggested > > v4: add Reviewed-by from Mariusz. > > v3: remove the almost-useless warning message, and make the change > > more simplified. > > v2: improve based on code review comments from Mariusz. > > v1: initial version. > > > > Incremental.c | 64 +++++++++++---------------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > Been out of the loop for a while, trying to catch up. > > Mariusz, do you consider this one good to go now? You were the one > providing feedback multiple times. > > Thanks, > Jes > > Hi Jes, Yes, I see this as a good change. The current behavior is not stable, because udev is not able to "umount"- if array is not mounted it is stopped, otherwise not. With the change, we will not try to stop it at all- fair for me, behavior is same every time. If we cannot stop array every time we should not try to. Thanks, Mariusz
