On Mi, 24.01.18 22:01, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: 1;5002;0c > 24.01.2018 17:13, Lennart Poettering пишет: > > On Mi, 24.01.18 14:51, Thomas Blume (thomas.bl...@suse.com) wrote: > > > >> Would this be an acceptable approach? > > > > Since a long time there has been a proper API for this: just take a > > BSD file lock on the device node and udev won't bother with the > > device anymore. As soon as you close the device fully (and thus also > > lost all locks), udev will notice and then reprobe it again. > > > > How exactly is udev relevant here? This discussion has nothing to do > with udev.
systemd acts on udev's notifications. Other daemons do too. If you don't want that all those apps and services act on it for your block device, then the right approach is to block udev from doing so, i.e. go to the source, not to the symptom. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
