On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 05:10:02PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 16:59, Karel Zak [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 15:30, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Milan Broz [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Maybe, but this was not invented in DM/MD camp:-)
Probably Kay or Greg can answer why it was done this way?
It's not from Greg or Kay. It just appeared some day in the context of dm. :)
And yes, symlinks *look* nice and simple for the outside, but they are
not, and have all sorts of problems like non-atomic updates, make it
Sounds like sysfs implementation problem, right?
It's a normal multi-file problem. It can by-definition not be atomic
without doing really weird locking things.
BTW, lsblk(8) and libblkid don't depend on the fact that slaves/holders
files are symlinks.
The important thing is the filename (/sys/block/.../slaves/<name>)
only. We don't follow the symlinks and we don't use readlink() there.
It means that you can replace the symlinks with regular files where
in the file contents is for example maj:min, etc.
Karel
--
Karel Zak [off-list ref]
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html