From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: A better solution than "md_component_detection = 1" Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:42:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20050420234256.GA24033@suse.de> References: <000001c5136d$3b3502a0$11051aac@pcp41116> <20050410172931.GF12752@marowsky-bree.de> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050410172931.GF12752@marowsky-bree.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: device-mapper development , hare@suse.de List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > Proposed solution: Introduce sub-devices into the sysfs tree. (And, > automatically, backlink those to parent devices, but that's just so the > tree can be traversed in any order.) > > For example, /sys/block/sda would have a sub/ directory with "dm-0" in > there, pointing at /sys/block/dm-0 (surprise). The > /sys/block/dm-0/parent/sd{a,b} entries would do a very surprising > thing. I don't have a problem with this, and I don't think udev would either. There's nothing keeping this from happening today with regards to the sysfs code. thanks, greg k-h