Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] 10-dm.rules: bump DM_UDEV_RULES_VSN to 3

[Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>]

On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 12:09 +0100, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
> On 3/1/24 23:40, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > Bump the rules version in order to indicate that upper level rules
> > should consume DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG rather than
> > DM_NOSCAN
> > and DM_SUSPENDED.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
> > ---
> >  udev/10-dm.rules.in | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/udev/10-dm.rules.in b/udev/10-dm.rules.in
> > index d30f663..21bbcb0 100644
> > --- a/udev/10-dm.rules.in
> > +++ b/udev/10-dm.rules.in
> > @@ -136,7 +136,9 @@ LABEL="dm_suspended_set"
> >  # possible future changes.
> >  # VSN 1 - original rules
> >  # VSN 2 - add support for synthesized events
> > -ENV{DM_UDEV_RULES_VSN}="2"
> > +# VSN 3 - use DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG as the only "API"
> > +#         to be consumed by non-dm rules.
> > +ENV{DM_UDEV_RULES_VSN}="3"
> >  
> >  ENV{DM_UDEV_DISABLE_DM_RULES_FLAG}!="1", ENV{DM_NAME}=="?*",
> > SYMLINK+="(DM_DIR)/$env{DM_NAME}"
> >  
> 
> One thing that comes to my mind here is cooperation between the rules
> from initrd/initramfs and rootfs - the initrd/initramfs can have
> different versions of the rules installed.

Yes, that's a source of pain. Are there current initramfs tools that
user DM_UDEV_RULES_VSN!=2? I think "2" should be the standard today,
given that it has existed since 2009. dracut just installs the upstream
rules it finds, at least for dm, AFAICT.

I've reviewed other rule sets I'm aware of, and the only one in which I
needed to check DM_UDEV_RULES_VSN was 11-dm-mpath.rules. I didn't have
a close look at the rule sets that dracut ships yet, let alone other
tools for initramfs maintenance.

Regardless, my patch set changes the availability and semantics of the 
device-mapper udev properties, and thus we should bump the version, no?

Thanks,
Martin