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