> Given that things almost work, and we are likely to encounter more cases
> like this, my proposal to fix this is to make the generic DiskDevice and
> PartitionDevice classed handle this correct. I don't think that having an
> cciss-disk class and then also a cciss-partition class is a good idea. Esp
> having multiple partition classes has turned out to be a bad idea as dmraid
> has shown.
Right. I was thinking maybe a cciss disk class, but certainly no special
class for the partitions.
>
> Moving forward There are 2 ways to fix things:
> 1) Strip away the part before the / in the name we get from udev,
> so that means instead of putting cciss/c0d0 in the name put in just
> c0d0
>
> Advantages:
> -code which assumes that Device.path.split("/")[-1] == Device.name
> stays working
>
> Disadvantages:
> -needs special _devpath handling
> -needs *very* special updateSysfsPath handling, where we need
> to come up with the prefix again
> -may lead to non unique names esp with i2o, which if I've googled
> correctly has i2o/hda, which will collide with plain hda on
> for example ppc if we remove the prefixed dir from the name
I wish this first option were viable, but it just doesn't seem to be.
The name collision thing is a deal-breaker.
>
> 2) Keep the name as seen / given by udev as is, so cciss/c0d0
>
> Advantages:
> -has non of the disadvantages of option 1.
> -not doing anything to the name requires no code
>
> Disadvantages:
> -we need to fix the code which assumes that
> Device.path.split("/")[-1] == Device.name
> (one could actually call this an advantage)
> -still need some special handling in updateSysfsPath
> (replace / with !)
This is ugly, but it's the one that will work.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
