[dm-devel] dm: expose dm_copy_name_and_uuid()

[John Dorminy]

I agree that adding uuid to all messages would be gross bloat, and a
bad idea to apply everywhere.

I didn't actually realize that devices could be renamed with dmsetup.
Thanks for pointing that out...

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:42 PM Alasdair G Kergon <agk at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:24:33AM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > In other words, NEVER report name/uuid without ALSO still reporting
> > dm_device_name alongside it.
>
> The reason we only log dm_device_name() is because it is the minimum
> necessary to uniquely identify the device and tie together all
> the messages relating to it.
>
> Adding name/uuid to every message would make log messages unduly long.
> We could offer an in-kernel option to log all setting and changing
> of device names and uuids in the dm core, though I might argue that that
> would just be covering up inadaquate logging in the userspace tools
> making the changes.
>
> Storage-logger offers a compromise that records it all from the
> generated uevents.
>
> Alasdair
>