[systemd-devel] On /dev/disk/by-id/ata-...-part2 missing, again

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 27.10.14 22:35, Alexander E. Patrakov (patrakov at gmail.com) wrote:

> 27.10.2014 22:28, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Mon, 27.10.14 22:22, Alexander E. Patrakov (patrakov at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks for the pointer. It is good to know that the information is available
> >>in the kernel.
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, it is not possible to run the lslocks program manually or see
> >>the contents of /proc/locks exactly at the moment when some stupid program
> >>decides to lock the device. Especially since this does not happen at every
> >>boot.
> >>
> >>I think that printing the equivalent of the lslocks output directly from
> >>udevd when failing to lock the device would be a useful debugging aid. Of
> >>course, this feature request only applies when udev.log-priority=debug.
> >
> >Well, to my knowledge there is not efficient way to query this
> >information, so we probably shouldn't do that.
> 
> That's why I suggested doing it only when debugging is enabled via the
> kernel command line. Otherwise, all this is left is guessing and code audits
> - which is worse than the inefficient search for the smoking gun :)

Well, it makes sense adding debugging functionality like this if this
is sometimes that happens to end users all the time because of
end-user mistakes. However, I am pretty sure in this case this is just
a packaging bug, which allowed incompatible versions of software to
run together.

> >If fsck is not the process that takes the locks, I bet LVM is. Are you
> >using that? Consider turning it off.
> 
> On this machine, LVM is not actually used, but is pulled in as a dependency
> of udisks-2.1.3. And that dependency is conditional, on the "cryptsetup" USE
> flag that is also useless on this desktop. So I think I can indeed remove
> the "lvm" binary from this desktop (but not from the Sony laptop). Thanks
> again!

Humm. udisks doesn't make use of LVM. Not sure what distro you are
using, but the dependency chain seems broken there... cryptsetup is
certainly not useless on the desktop, but actually independent of
LVM. If your distribution implies LVM if cryptsetup is on, then your
distro is really really broken.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat