From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39916 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751630AbaLEH0U (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:26:20 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XwnHO-0004fk-7j for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:26:18 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:26:18 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:26:18 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2][BTRFS-PROGS] Don't use LVM snapshot device Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 07:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1417718382-6753-1-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:39:37 +0100 as excerpted: > To check if a device is a LVM snapshot, it is checked the 'udev' > device property 'DM_UDEV_LOW_PRIORITY_FLAG' . If it is set to 1, > the device has to be skipped. > > As consequence, btrfs now depends also by the libudev. Not being a coder I gotta ask... How does this patch deal with mdev (busybox) or static dev instead of udev? Does it gracefully degrade to legacy LVM-agnostic behavior? Meanwhile, just requiring libudev is certain to bring some pretty zealous opposition from the anti-systemd/anti-udev camp. I like the goal, but that better be an optional dep unless we're deliberately stepping into that debate, because that's exactly what we'd be doing. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman