On 21/08/2014 22:29, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 8/21/14, 3:44 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
A long time back there was an attempt to remove it but
this avoided it. Pls ref to the link in this discussion.
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg27272.html
Hm, I guess I don't understand this. How is udev related to whether
or not /proc/partitions is sufficient vs. recursive /dev?
To be clear, my patchset keeps the -d / --all-devices option.
It simply discovers all devices via /proc/partitions, not via
a full /dev tree walk.
Makes sense.
Thanks, Anand
Thanks,
-Eric
Thanks, Anand
On 08/21/2014 06:21 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
btrfs fileystem show and btrfs device scan today both have
the "-d" option to scan everything under /dev. But we also
have a mechanism to scan everything in /proc/partitions, which
should always be sufficient.
If anyone knows why we'd find something deep under /dev but
not in /proc/partitions, speak now or forever hold your peace...
Tested this by running through a matrix of -d, -m, or "" args
for show/scan, for a 2-device fs, with and without a symlinked
device, with and without a symlinked mountpoint. All output was
identical.
Thanks,
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
