On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 01:25:33PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > And I've checked back - lsblk actually works just fine at the moment. > > But it turns out once we create the slave links it stops working, > > which is a really good argument against the first two patches, which > > would otherwise seem nice.. > > Which is why I have sent the "paths/" patchset in the first place. Because I > did some homework and read the previous discussion about this, and how lsblk > failure to behave with slave links led to the revert of the slaves/holders > patch by Dr. Hannes.
Sorry, I did not actually notice that Hannes patch manually created the same slaves/holders link we otherwise create using the block layer APIs. Had I realized those actually were the same that had saved me some work. So I guess the v2 paths/ link patch from you is the least of all evils. Hannes, can you look over that one?
