Re: [linux-lvm] commit c527a0cbfc3 may have a bug

["heming.zhao@suse.com" <heming.zhao@suse.com>]

Hello David,

I accept your points. the commit c527a0cbfc3 is correct.
I still not sure if the correct fix would have unintended consequences.
I think the most of people should only config device/filter in their machine.
After this commit, machine with duplicated devs should config 2 same copies filter rule.
one copy for device/filter, another for device/global_filter. It is wield.
The legacy code lived a period of time. Many of machine use it.

I quickly check the codes, before c527a0cbfc3, lvmetad_filter is
mainly used in _pvscan_cache() with in seldom condition. All other cases use device/filter.

So I suggest
1. Does lvm2 continue to keep the wrong filter(full_filter) usage?
    It can keep machine running as usual.
    or may add a new config item (e.g. pvscan_compat_filter = 0|1). let user to choose
filter behaviour

2. (a lot of work) backport mainline one filter code into stable-2.02 branch.

At last,
There is a little code tip for mainline branch:
To remove the in cfg_array(devices_global_filter_CFG in lib/config/config_settings.h
It generates useless config info.

Thanks.


On 2/15/20 4:40 AM, David Teigland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:34:19PM +0100, Gionatan Danti wrote:
>> Hi David, being filters one of the most asked questions, can I ask why we
>> have so many different filters, leading to such complex interactions and
>> behaviors?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong: I am sure you (the lvm team) have very good reasons to
>> do that, and I am surely missing something? But what, precisely? How should
>> we (end users) consider filters? Should we only use global_filter?
> 
> You're right, filters are difficult to understand and use correctly.  The
> complexity and confusion in the code is no better.  With the removal of
> lvmetad in 2.03 versions (e.g. RHEL8) there's no difference between filter
> and global_filter, so that's some small improvement.  But, I think filters
> should be replaced or overhauled with something easier to use and more
> useful at a technical level.
> 
> I've created a bz about that and welcome thoughts about what a replacement
> should or should not be like.  With input the work is more likely to be
> prioritized.
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803266
>