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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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. 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
