From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41479 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757774AbaHZLIo (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:08:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:08:42 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Anand Jain , linux-btrfs Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs-progs: remove full /dev scanning Message-ID: <20140826110842.GP29981@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <53F51F4D.2090203@redhat.com> <53F5B18B.1030801@oracle.com> <53F60264.5090401@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <53F60264.5090401@redhat.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 09:29:56AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 8/21/14, 3:44 AM, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > > > A long time back there was an attempt to remove it but > > this avoided it. Pls ref to the link in this discussion. > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg27272.html > > Hm, I guess I don't understand this. How is udev related to whether > or not /proc/partitions is sufficient vs. recursive /dev? The argument about udev is probably invalid, /proc/filesystem is populated by kernel afaics. > To be clear, my patchset keeps the -d / --all-devices option. > > It simply discovers all devices via /proc/partitions, not via > a full /dev tree walk. I'm fine with that.