From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: dm: expose dm_copy_name_and_uuid() Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:33:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20200207173325.GA24010@redhat.com> References: <20200201005524.23405-1-jdorminy@redhat.com> <20200203165402.GA11874@redhat.com> <20200207012432.GA23327@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <20200207014228.GC23327@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline To: John Dorminy Cc: device-mapper development , Alasdair G Kergon List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Thu, Feb 06 2020 at 10:19pm -0500, John Dorminy wrote: > I agree that adding uuid to all messages would be gross bloat, and a > bad idea to apply everywhere. > > I didn't actually realize that devices could be renamed with dmsetup. > Thanks for pointing that out... Also, device names can also be ridiculously long. I really just don't think logging the name instead of major:minor is a great idea... but I'm open to target authors electing to log it _in addition to_ dm_device_name() -- but I wouldn't want to go as far as imposing that constraint with code... Or would I? ;) Create dm_pretty_device_name() that logs: "major:minor (name)" ? Mike