24.01.2018 22:08, Lennart Poettering пишет: > 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. >
You cannot lock device that does not exist. And as soon as it appears it is mounted. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
