From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93329C433DB for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:38:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EA56522A for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:38:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231219AbhCHSiG (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:38:06 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:57001 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229646AbhCHShy (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:37:54 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 5D6C768B02; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:37:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:37:51 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Martin Wilck Cc: Daniel Wagner , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Suppress uevent for hidden device when removed Message-ID: <20210308183751.GA17380@lst.de> References: <20210303171201.8432-1-dwagner@suse.de> <66a9b7ff4958ab990f58a3dad8152d00c59775ce.camel@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66a9b7ff4958ab990f58a3dad8152d00c59775ce.camel@suse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 06:30:34PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > I wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to remove this code > > if (disk->flags & GENHD_FL_HIDDEN) { > dev_set_uevent_suppress(ddev, 0); > return; > } > > from register_disk(). The way you did it now, we would receive neither > "add" nor "remove" events in user space, but there might be change > events in between ? Well, we'll need to keep the return. That being said keepign the uevents supressed entirely might be a good idea.