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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 03773C67839 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:47:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1F220811 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:47:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BB1F220811 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de 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 S1726500AbeLNHrY (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2018 02:47:24 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33136 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726494AbeLNHrX (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2018 02:47:23 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E004AEEC; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] block: expose devt for GENHD_FL_HIDDEN disks To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo , Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe References: <20181206164812.30925-1-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181206164812.30925-5-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181213143218.GA8723@lst.de> <20181213152532.GA5321@calabresa> From: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: <35acb1b3-77f5-29cf-b92d-5171f4ad6450@suse.de> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:47:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181213152532.GA5321@calabresa> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 12/13/18 4:25 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > 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. > But you haven't answered my question: Why can't we patch 'lsblk' to provide the required information even with the current sysfs layout? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hare@suse.de (Hannes Reinecke) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:47:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] block: expose devt for GENHD_FL_HIDDEN disks In-Reply-To: <20181213152532.GA5321@calabresa> References: <20181206164812.30925-1-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181206164812.30925-5-cascardo@canonical.com> <20181213143218.GA8723@lst.de> <20181213152532.GA5321@calabresa> Message-ID: <35acb1b3-77f5-29cf-b92d-5171f4ad6450@suse.de> On 12/13/18 4:25 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > 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. > But you haven't answered my question: Why can't we patch 'lsblk' to provide the required information even with the current sysfs layout? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare at suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg GF: F. Imend?rffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)