[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D2F0B6A.6010201@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:25:46 +0100
From: Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] linux-next - WARNING: at fs/block_dev.c:824 bd_link_disk_holder+0x92/0x1ac()
On 01/13/2011 03:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, as a general rule, when in doubt, just create an attribute. Let's
> refrain from custom symlinkery in sysfs, please. In this case too, a
> holder attribute containing strings like ext[3|4], md, dm or whatnot
> would have been _much_ simpler and actually more useful.
Maybe, but this was not invented in DM/MD camp:-)
Probably Kay or Greg can answer why it was done this way?
For DM it just added links to be proper user of it, see
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=f165921df46a977e3561f1bd9f13a348441486d1
Anyway, it is /sys/block - so it represents block devices.
If btrfs internally creates some virtual _block_ device for its pool, it should
present it here too with slaves/holders. If not, why it should create any links there?
Milan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists