Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs-progs: remove full /dev scanning

[Anand Jain <Anand.Jain@oracle.com>]

On 21/08/2014 22:29, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 8/21/14, 3:44 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>>   A long time back there was an attempt to remove it but
>>   this avoided it. Pls ref to the link in this discussion.
>>
>>   https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg27272.html
>
> Hm, I guess I don't understand this.  How is udev related to whether
> or not /proc/partitions is sufficient vs. recursive /dev?
>
> To be clear, my patchset keeps the -d / --all-devices option.
>
> It simply discovers all devices via /proc/partitions, not via
> a full /dev tree walk.

  Makes sense.

Thanks, Anand


> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
>
>> Thanks, Anand
>>
>> On 08/21/2014 06:21 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> btrfs fileystem show and btrfs device scan today both have
>>> the "-d" option to scan everything under /dev.  But we also
>>> have a mechanism to scan everything in /proc/partitions, which
>>> should always be sufficient.
>>>
>>> If anyone knows why we'd find something deep under /dev but
>>> not in /proc/partitions, speak now or forever hold your peace...
>>>
>>> Tested this by running through a matrix of -d, -m, or "" args
>>> for show/scan, for a 2-device fs, with and without a symlinked
>>> device, with and without a symlinked mountpoint.  All output was
>>> identical.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Eric
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>