Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> writes: > The fact that pvs *complains* about this instead of just ignoring it makes > it fairly unique. I don't know why the authors of pvs chose to do this. > Perhaps they were working around some known or suspected bug in some other > program that was commonly used as pvs's parent.
I've always assumed that there was some code inside pvdisplay and other LVM programs that verified that all the fd's opened by the process were properly closed before it terminated, to give feedback to the developers. And I assumed that the fact that pvdisplay (in the older version) always printed such a message showed that there was such a bug in its code. But it's possible it was due to some aspect of my environment. Dale
