[Adding Karel in CC] On 10/06/2014 05:47 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: >> From: Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Ok, so IMHO I think that losetup(8) should issue its own >> ioctl(BLKRRPART) and shouldn't rely on the kernel during the loop setup >> since it can fail silently. This way it can check the return value of >> ioctl() and moght choose to do it again in case the return value is -EBUSY. >> Hm I was probably not clear, let me phase it again: Ok, so IMHO I think that losetup(8) should issue its own ioctl(BLKRRPART) and shouldn't rely on the kernel during the loop setup since the kernel can fail silently. Using ioctl(BLKRRPART) allows losetup(8) to check the return value of ioctl() and might choose to do it again in case the return value is -EBUSY. >> Or indicates in the man page that the -P can fail silently. > > It's not clear to me why the kernel would be expected to check itself > for partitions in this manner. If losetup does not get the -P option, > it seems like the kernel should not check. > Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
