From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163E9C65BAE for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45E820880 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:25:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D45E820880 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728916AbeLMPZn (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:25:43 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:38185 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729654AbeLMPZn (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:25:43 -0500 Received: from 201-68-129-100.dsl.telesp.net.br ([201.68.129.100] helo=calabresa) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gXSrp-0003D3-N7; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:25:38 +0000 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:25:33 -0200 From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Hannes Reinecke , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] block: expose devt for GENHD_FL_HIDDEN disks Message-ID: <20181213152532.GA5321@calabresa> References: <20181206164812.30925-1-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181206164812.30925-5-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181213143218.GA8723@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181213143218.GA8723@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > Welll ... this is not just 'lsblk', but more importantly this will force > > udev to create _block_ device nodes for the hidden devices, essentially > > 'unhide' them. > > > > Is this what we want? > > Christoph? > > I thought the entire _point_ of having hidden devices is that the are ... > > well ... hidden ... > > Yes, that is why I really don't like the last two patches. > > And I've checked back - lsblk actually works just fine at the moment. > But it turns out once we create the slave links it stops working, > which is a really good argument against the first two patches, which > would otherwise seem nice.. Which is why I have sent the "paths/" patchset in the first place. Because I did some homework and read the previous discussion about this, and how lsblk failure to behave with slave links led to the revert of the slaves/holders patch by Dr. Hannes. Cascardo. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cascardo@canonical.com (Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:25:33 -0200 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] block: expose devt for GENHD_FL_HIDDEN disks In-Reply-To: <20181213143218.GA8723@lst.de> References: <20181206164812.30925-1-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181206164812.30925-5-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181213143218.GA8723@lst.de> Message-ID: <20181213152532.GA5321@calabresa> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018@03:32:18PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018@10:18:40AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > Welll ... this is not just 'lsblk', but more importantly this will force > > udev to create _block_ device nodes for the hidden devices, essentially > > 'unhide' them. > > > > Is this what we want? > > Christoph? > > I thought the entire _point_ of having hidden devices is that the are ... > > well ... hidden ... > > Yes, that is why I really don't like the last two patches. > > And I've checked back - lsblk actually works just fine at the moment. > But it turns out once we create the slave links it stops working, > which is a really good argument against the first two patches, which > would otherwise seem nice.. Which is why I have sent the "paths/" patchset in the first place. Because I did some homework and read the previous discussion about this, and how lsblk failure to behave with slave links led to the revert of the slaves/holders patch by Dr. Hannes. Cascardo.