From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sagi@grimberg.me (Sagi Grimberg) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 18:11:09 -0700 Subject: [PATCH rfc 0/3] add support to discovery async event notifications In-Reply-To: <068e3b84-b43e-0202-ace6-612e4466938b@grimberg.me> References: <20181004212328.30205-1-sagi@grimberg.me> <6874c24e-28ec-97da-5d31-6a9215f995e1@grimberg.me> <1e8b8eae-d52b-b8d0-9d86-9e5898b0efc2@suse.de> <068e3b84-b43e-0202-ace6-612e4466938b@grimberg.me> Message-ID: <3e7e99bc-deff-795f-0f0b-de3f50c3a50a@grimberg.me> >> Oh, I don't doubt that it'll work in the sense that 'nvme connect-all' >> is executed. >> I _do_ doubt that the 'disown' is doing anything at all; both '&' and >> 'disown' will be used as arguments to '/usr/sbin/nvme', and _not_ >> interpreted by any shell (as no shell is invoked in the first place). >> Internally udev will call 'execve' to call the new program, which will >> invoke a shell only for shell scripts; binary programs will be >> executed directly with not shell whatsoever. > > I see, we can run it with /bin/sh and it should do the trick? Hannes, Do you agree that it would suffice? Or, Do you think we should take a different approach? Would like to get some feedback from others given that this is not a trivial decision about which way we go here..