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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 1576CC4361B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C696A23A9D for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:32:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728698AbgLHKby (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 05:31:54 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:60189 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726755AbgLHKbt (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 05:31:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607423423; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=93jbxpYyv2YGTT1dmSIY9OMo6/h6rcAr8GzYCcg92HY=; b=WJYbLqxmcff0sIab77wTMELWsCRSrpC6zZIY7lpdd2KNNdMFb+4XBOmb0wmwkVUaG+Ro5F K1pgOxsIIqBdh/s99JlzwV7qxc3dnx+3w3/KDcQg3HV+de0SZzVf3KMToOcYnCE3S7bKfO U9q0+PSu5rzBWeKmi2Ou6nzUUc3vYQo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-521-qlkjLPEHOkmMUAAGcwQkUQ-1; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 05:30:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: qlkjLPEHOkmMUAAGcwQkUQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F1A107AD5B; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-237.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.237]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59065C1A1; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:29:23 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , Mike Snitzer , Oleksii Kurochko , Dongsheng Yang , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, "Martin K . Petersen" , Ilya Dryomov , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions Message-ID: <20201208102923.GD1202995@T590> References: <20201207131918.2252553-1-hch@lst.de> <20201207131918.2252553-5-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201207131918.2252553-5-hch@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Change the policy so that a BLKROSET on the whole device also affects > partitions. To quote Martin K. Petersen: > > It's very common for database folks to twiddle the read-only state of > block devices and partitions. I know that our users will find it very > counter-intuitive that setting /dev/sda read-only won't prevent writes > to /dev/sda1. > > The existing behavior is inconsistent in the sense that doing: > > permits writes. But: > > > > doesn't. > > And a subsequent: > > doesn't work either since sda1's read-only policy has been inherited > from the whole-disk device. > > You need to do: > > after setting the whole-disk device rw to effectuate the same change on > the partitions, otherwise they are stuck being read-only indefinitely. > > However, setting the read-only policy on a partition does *not* require > the revalidate step. As a matter of fact, doing the revalidate will blow > away the policy setting you just made. > > So the user needs to take different actions depending on whether they > are trying to read-protect a whole-disk device or a partition. Despite > using the same ioctl. That is really confusing. > > I have lost count how many times our customers have had data clobbered > because of ambiguity of the existing whole-disk device policy. The > current behavior violates the principle of least surprise by letting the > user think they write protected the whole disk when they actually > didn't. > > Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- > block/genhd.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c > index 878f94727aaa96..c214fcd25a05c9 100644 > --- a/block/genhd.c > +++ b/block/genhd.c > @@ -1449,8 +1449,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_disk_ro); > > int bdev_read_only(struct block_device *bdev) > { > - return bdev->bd_read_only || > - test_bit(GD_READ_ONLY, &bdev->bd_disk->state); > + return bdev->bd_read_only || get_disk_ro(bdev->bd_disk); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_read_only); I think this patch should be folded into previous one, otherwise bdev_read_only(part) may return false even though ioctl(BLKROSET) has been done on the whole disk. -- Ming 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=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 EC1F7C433FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:30:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99BE123A9D for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:30:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 99BE123A9D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=FKD2q5o56DE0Dq9dIAM58x2+hdJt1zV9NL+xFHtAzjM=; b=AlyUlRpnUzuJztZFxNEBXKFU3 aAvqWqxaW+IC402OOsPtO26scAtnH8QJdQWpEY605h1YhhJ8k1aOpoAu9n6cNf2JmSKf+iNLe636Y GeYE2Arhbywhqb+rYav5EMTLUP3+FdGhcvEGVIkYSxT9MW66gk9/mV/9AldFtAzulv1R9uJIPNvJw fVp35plAIe6sURVseoL8qBzNZ1PkKGFjCsjcBOa6U7osWKsynEIZpXEl4pa2dmKNgZC51lpn7ABjt 37gRzFyF97VEpll3FTxV7bvtTp3VNY7PIu6qLm7OUFxgn9T8PnyJnoqQEcS+E70YTjPp98vH/5F9y 2lxq8qJsg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kmaGF-0002kL-LA; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:30:23 +0000 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kmaGC-0002jn-4J for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:30:20 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607423419; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=93jbxpYyv2YGTT1dmSIY9OMo6/h6rcAr8GzYCcg92HY=; b=NiaC8Dv/hwKhqAx8N8lTGhqvWBN9BcSOi5+8/tDLY+3zuLSYHxQMEHAV/JkZ75ikljMTkl BVL4j5mXpVmQdNPq6R4I7W3YmeSS5/ZDbYHvl8BfFPWk6egnkcgD/34eRjfDQxAt/cjVTI mdmkmmJh/jrzsKKzGaoVijNp7tfPnuk= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-521-qlkjLPEHOkmMUAAGcwQkUQ-1; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 05:30:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: qlkjLPEHOkmMUAAGcwQkUQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F1A107AD5B; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-237.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.237]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59065C1A1; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:29:23 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions Message-ID: <20201208102923.GD1202995@T590> References: <20201207131918.2252553-1-hch@lst.de> <20201207131918.2252553-5-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201207131918.2252553-5-hch@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201208_053020_223931_7ECB9A6D X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 28.99 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , Mike Snitzer , Oleksii Kurochko , Dongsheng Yang , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, "Martin K . Petersen" , Ilya Dryomov , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Change the policy so that a BLKROSET on the whole device also affects > partitions. To quote Martin K. Petersen: > > It's very common for database folks to twiddle the read-only state of > block devices and partitions. I know that our users will find it very > counter-intuitive that setting /dev/sda read-only won't prevent writes > to /dev/sda1. > > The existing behavior is inconsistent in the sense that doing: > > permits writes. But: > > > > doesn't. > > And a subsequent: > > doesn't work either since sda1's read-only policy has been inherited > from the whole-disk device. > > You need to do: > > after setting the whole-disk device rw to effectuate the same change on > the partitions, otherwise they are stuck being read-only indefinitely. > > However, setting the read-only policy on a partition does *not* require > the revalidate step. As a matter of fact, doing the revalidate will blow > away the policy setting you just made. > > So the user needs to take different actions depending on whether they > are trying to read-protect a whole-disk device or a partition. Despite > using the same ioctl. That is really confusing. > > I have lost count how many times our customers have had data clobbered > because of ambiguity of the existing whole-disk device policy. The > current behavior violates the principle of least surprise by letting the > user think they write protected the whole disk when they actually > didn't. > > Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- > block/genhd.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c > index 878f94727aaa96..c214fcd25a05c9 100644 > --- a/block/genhd.c > +++ b/block/genhd.c > @@ -1449,8 +1449,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_disk_ro); > > int bdev_read_only(struct block_device *bdev) > { > - return bdev->bd_read_only || > - test_bit(GD_READ_ONLY, &bdev->bd_disk->state); > + return bdev->bd_read_only || get_disk_ro(bdev->bd_disk); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_read_only); I think this patch should be folded into previous one, otherwise bdev_read_only(part) may return false even though ioctl(BLKROSET) has been done on the whole disk. -- Ming _______________________________________________ Linux-nvme mailing list Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme 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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 EDBA1C433FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:30:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 705C423A9D for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:30:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 705C423A9D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=tempfail smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607423446; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=kOu4gOO7MTFzEWKTc/5qIUnC+tP9tkqkRHNJbDEzPYA=; b=hRmAId3uZhcRn1kZ6TCTqKE+fG1exhGvGW/Bsa03Lh1rFjgfSGLL7kAQc/PA1SlMgRkvaO ul2dIrOwmHIy82oTaGD5tRWCvdr8LhOrCdtXYX6YLNcBfi3GSBYX5an1GIqjt5YXI+8IKd +NWdiFFmp6DNjIxHvQmTZckB7i48wUs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-441-fpAkk_UhOZqrF3xLHJZGVg-1; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 05:30:40 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fpAkk_UhOZqrF3xLHJZGVg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0D2C1E7DC; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35645C1A1; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CC0180954D; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 0B8ATYK2032457 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 05:29:34 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 500E35C1A3; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-237.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.237]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59065C1A1; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:29:23 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20201208102923.GD1202995@T590> References: <20201207131918.2252553-1-hch@lst.de> <20201207131918.2252553-5-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201207131918.2252553-5-hch@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-loop: dm-devel@redhat.com Cc: Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , Mike Snitzer , Oleksii Kurochko , Dongsheng Yang , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, "Martin K . Petersen" , Ilya Dryomov , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions X-BeenThere: dm-devel@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: device-mapper development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Change the policy so that a BLKROSET on the whole device also affects > partitions. To quote Martin K. Petersen: > > It's very common for database folks to twiddle the read-only state of > block devices and partitions. I know that our users will find it very > counter-intuitive that setting /dev/sda read-only won't prevent writes > to /dev/sda1. > > The existing behavior is inconsistent in the sense that doing: > > permits writes. But: > > > > doesn't. > > And a subsequent: > > doesn't work either since sda1's read-only policy has been inherited > from the whole-disk device. > > You need to do: > > after setting the whole-disk device rw to effectuate the same change on > the partitions, otherwise they are stuck being read-only indefinitely. > > However, setting the read-only policy on a partition does *not* require > the revalidate step. As a matter of fact, doing the revalidate will blow > away the policy setting you just made. > > So the user needs to take different actions depending on whether they > are trying to read-protect a whole-disk device or a partition. Despite > using the same ioctl. That is really confusing. > > I have lost count how many times our customers have had data clobbered > because of ambiguity of the existing whole-disk device policy. The > current behavior violates the principle of least surprise by letting the > user think they write protected the whole disk when they actually > didn't. > > Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- > block/genhd.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c > index 878f94727aaa96..c214fcd25a05c9 100644 > --- a/block/genhd.c > +++ b/block/genhd.c > @@ -1449,8 +1449,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_disk_ro); > > int bdev_read_only(struct block_device *bdev) > { > - return bdev->bd_read_only || > - test_bit(GD_READ_ONLY, &bdev->bd_disk->state); > + return bdev->bd_read_only || get_disk_ro(bdev->bd_disk); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_read_only); I think this patch should be folded into previous one, otherwise bdev_read_only(part) may return false even though ioctl(BLKROSET) has been done on the whole disk. -- Ming -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel