Re: [PATCH v2] loopback: Do not automaticaly replace existing loopback dev, error instead

[Glenn Washburn]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:55:20 +0100
Daniel Kiper <dkiper@net-space.pl> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:52:16PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:34:44 +0100
> > Daniel Kiper <dkiper@net-space.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:57:11PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote:
> > > > If there is a loopback device with the same name as the one to
> > > > be created, instead of closing the old one and replacing it
> > > > with the new one, return an error instead. If the loopback
> > > > device was created, its probably being used by something and
> > > > just replacing it may cause grub to crash unexpectedly. This
> > > > fixes obvious problems like `loopback d (d)/somefile'. Its not
> > > > too onerous to force the user to delete the loopback first with
> > > > the `-d' switch.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Glenn Washburn <development@efficientek.com>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > PS May I ask you to create new thread for new version of the
> > > patches instead of attaching them to previous threads?
> >
> > These two patches were not meant to be a thread together, ie
> > separate patches, which was why I was treating them separately.  I
> > can see how that might be confusing now.
> 
> I was also referring to the LUKS2 patches, sorry if I was not precise,
> which are always connected to the first thread created. This is
> confusing too. Could you create separate thread for each version of
> patchset in the future?

I was keeping them together because that was its easy to find the
comments from the previous version of the patch series to make sure
things weren't forgotten. Honestly, with more experience with
submitting patches this way, what I like best is to always send a new
version of a patch series in reply to the very first cover letter, so
each new version of a series is at the same thread depth. In my viewer,
I can collapse the thread to the patch series version when I don't need
to see anything in that version and the versions are ordered in
alphabetical order. I only started doing this with the LUKS patches
after v4, so its still confusing because there's a thread depth of 6 or
so before each version is at the same thread depth. Perhaps, its not a
big deal to have versions of patch series connected with previous
versions. I'll create a new thread for the next LUKS patch series. On
further series, I may consistently use the above method (unlike the
current LUKS thread) and you can tell me if you still don't like it.

Glenn