On 9/4/23 03:48, Mariusz Tkaczyk wrote: > 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. Applied! Thanks, Jes
