Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:09:57 +0200 | Subject | Re: API break, sysfs "capability" file | From | Hannes Reinecke <> |
| |
On 4/9/24 00:41, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:23:49PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> Not sure how this is salvageable. This is just seriously fucked >> up. What now? >> >> It has been proposed to use the "range_ext" sysfs attr instead as a >> hint if partition scanning is available or not. But it's entirely >> undocumented. Is this something that will remain stable? (I mean, >> whether something is documented or not apparently has no effect on the >> stability of an API anyway, so I guess it's equally shaky as the >> capability sysattr? Is any of the block device sysfs interfaces >> actually stable or can they change any time?) > > The "ext_range" attribute does look like an appropriate proxy for the > attribute, but indeed, it's not well documented. > > Looking at the history of the documentation you had been relying on, it > appears that was submitted with good intentions (9243c6f3e012a92d), but > it itself changed values, acknowledging the instability of this > interface. > > So what to do? If documentation is all that's preventing "ext_range" > from replacing you're previous usage, then let's add it in the > Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block. It's been there since 2008, so > that seems like a reliable attribute to put there. > I'll side with Keith. Our management tools use 'ext_range' to find if a device is partitionable, and we've done that since the very beginning of sysfs.
Cheers,
Hannes
| |