From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast02.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66EC110D18D5 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 19:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292FD800A17 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 19:07:58 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 20:07:46 +0100 From: Gionatan Danti In-Reply-To: <20200214204028.GB20792@redhat.com> References: <098d6e8d-2d2c-5067-1435-eefd7e2d09bc@suse.com> <20200214191115.GA20792@redhat.com> <1f438b012d606d06d77ff9a1fc3a6926@assyoma.it> <20200214204028.GB20792@redhat.com> Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] commit c527a0cbfc3 may have a bug Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: David Teigland Cc: linux-lvm@redhat.com, heming.zhao@suse.com Il 2020-02-14 21:40 David Teigland ha scritto: > You're right, filters are difficult to understand and use correctly. > The > complexity and confusion in the code is no better. With the removal of > lvmetad in 2.03 versions (e.g. RHEL8) there's no difference between > filter > and global_filter, so that's some small improvement. But, I think > filters > should be replaced or overhauled with something easier to use and more > useful at a technical level. > > I've created a bz about that and welcome thoughts about what a > replacement > should or should not be like. With input the work is more likely to be > prioritized. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803266 Hi David, I think that part of the problem is the unclear/vague description of filters (eg: "plain" filter vs global_filter). In other words, maybe the real problem is a documentation one. For example: am I right saying that global_filter were introduced as a "fail-safe" mechanism to protect udev & the likes by command-line-overwritten "plain" filter directive? If so, I am not sure the comment in lvm.conf fully convey this message (and I can not find much on man pages, also). If not, and I am wrong about filter vs global_filter, then, well, this somewhat proves the point above :) Thanks. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it [1] email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8