On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 16:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> > >> This is wrong, now handleUdevDiskLabelFormat() will get called on them > >> which in case of a multipath or a RAID mirror will succeed (and in > >> case of a RAID stripe might succeed too), resulting in the raw disk > >> becoming part of storage.partitioned. Maybe partionable should > >> become a parameter of the DiskDevice constructor and get set to > >> False here ? > > > > Instantiating DiskDevice for a disk is most certainly not wrong. > > Sorry I did not mean to imply the principle was wrong, merely that as > implemented it will result in a wrong outcome in some cases. I'm a little cranky in the morning. I'd have been able to tell if I'd had some coffee first. No worries. > >> Even with this fixed, the raw disks now will still become part of > >> storage.disks, and I'm not sure we even want that. > > > > I'm not sure why we wouldn't now that the (disk ==> disklabel) rule is > > gone. However, we could certainly use those formats' new "hidden" > > attribute for this if we do want to filter them out any place they are > > found to be problematic. > > > > Ah, I forgot about the hidden attribute, and I agree that in general > making these disks DiskDevices is the right thing to do. All I was > trying to say is that I'm worried this might cause issues. I ended up using the "hidden" attribute as an indicator not to do disklabel handling for these disks. New patches coming soon... > > (Likewise for the new status behavior of DMRaidArrayDevice / MultiPath...) This really should work fine, and it's absolutely the more correct approach, so if there are problems I think they'll be problems that need addressing anyhow. Dave _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
