disk plugin: ignore loop devices #678
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
panlinux
force-pushed
the
upstream-ignore-loop-devices
branch
2 times, most recently
from
63a36f4
to
20fd4f1
Compare
It doesn't make sense to apply tuning parameters to loop devices, since they point at files that live in other block devices, also subject to tuning. Signed-off-by: Andreas Hasenack <[email protected]>
panlinux
force-pushed
the
upstream-ignore-loop-devices
branch
from
20fd4f1
to
afbfb7d
Compare
|
Thanks to Athos Ribeiro, here is a much simpler version that I force-pushed. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It doesn't make sense to apply tuning parameters to loop devices, since they point at files that live in other block devices, also subject to tuning.
I checked the
devicestructure looking for a telltale of a loop device. I thought that theloop/backing_fileattribute would be a good choice, but I had some that had no such attribute. I could also inspect the name of the device, and assume "loop*" is a loop device. I ended up picking the major number, 7, and was a bit annoyed that there was no straight attribute with that number, so there is some ugly parsing of thedevattribute.Let's use this PR to plant the idea of ignoring loop devices. If that sounds ok and I didn't miss a use case where we want loop devices, we can iterate over the best way to do it.
Thanks!