From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gabriel de Perthuis Subject: Re: bcache-tools: changes to make the udev rules work Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:46:00 +0200 Message-ID: <521BDAA8.5090803@gmail.com> References: <521B1E94.8090802@rolffokkens.nl> <521BC237.9000802@rolffokkens.nl> <521BC829.9080303@gmail.com> <521BD496.5060207@rolffokkens.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <521BD496.5060207-6w2rdlBuEQTpMFipWq+H6g@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Rolf Fokkens Cc: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org > You're right, see below. That was an ugly one. > > Do you think having blkid identify bcache itself would have helped, > or is there always a chance of contradictive signatures which may > confuse blkid? make-bcache should use libblkid to detect existing superblocks, and bail and recommend wipefs. Support in the other direction (having libblkid support bcache) is just a nice-to-have, and will maybe allow simplifying a few things in bcache-progs. The udev rule is written not to break if libblkid gets bcache support, but it can't really be simplified, we still want to detect stray superblocks even if the latest tools can't create them.