Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:32:21 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? |
| |
Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |