Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?

[Andrew Morton]

Phillip Susi <psusi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > But I suspect we could do an even better job if we did that in userspace.
>  > 
>  > The logic to determine whether the new device is the same as the old device
>  > can be arbitrarily complex, with increasing levels of success.  Various
>  > heuristics can be applied, some of which will involve knowledge of
>  > filesystem layout, etc.
>  > 
>  > So would it not be possible to optionally punt the device naming decision
>  > up to the hotplug scripts?  So code up there can go do direct-IO reads of
>  > the newly-present blockdev, use filesytem layout knowledge, peek at UUIDs,
>  > superblocks, disk labels, partition tables, inode numbering, etc?  Go look
>  > up a database, work out what that filesystem was doing last time we saw it,
>  > etc?
>  > 
>  > We could of course add things to the filesystems to help this process, but
>  > it'd be good if all the state tracking and magic didn't have to be locked
>  > up in the kernel.
> 
> 
>  Hrm... interesting but sounds like that could be sticky.  For instance, 
>  what if the user script that does the verifying happens to be ON the 
>  volume to be verified?

Well that would be a bug.  Solutions would be a) don't put the scripts on a
removable/power-downable device or b) use tmpfs.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/