On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 21:57 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/13/2010 08:54 PM, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 17:11 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Write an "AUTO +imsm +1.x -all" line to mdadm.conf, and always
> >> write mdadm.conf. This is necessary for proper activation of
> >> Intel BIOS RAID sets when they are configured in the OROM
> >> after installation.
> >>
> >> This patch is intended for f13-branch and rhel6-branch too.
> >> ---
> >> storage/__init__.py | 11 +++--------
> >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/storage/__init__.py b/storage/__init__.py
> >> index ebbf9ed..b19dd18 100644
> >> --- a/storage/__init__.py
> >> +++ b/storage/__init__.py
> >> @@ -2135,7 +2135,6 @@ class FSSet(object):
> >>
> >> def mdadmConf(self):
> >> """ Return the contents of mdadm.conf. """
> >> - retval = None
> >> arrays = self.devicetree.getDevicesByType("mdarray")
> >> arrays.extend(self.devicetree.getDevicesByType("mdbiosraidarray"))
> >> arrays.extend(self.devicetree.getDevicesByType("mdcontainer"))
> >> @@ -2148,19 +2147,15 @@ class FSSet(object):
> >>
> >> conf = "# mdadm.conf written out by anaconda\n"
> >> conf += "MAILADDR root\n"
> >> + conf += "AUTO +imsm +1.x -all\n"
> >
> > This makes me nervous. What else are we changing here besides firmware
> > raid? Don't say nothing -- I won't believe you.
> >
>
> We are telling mdadm that it is ok to auto assembly imsm (Intel firmware RAID)
> *and* normal mdraid sets with a metadata version of 1.x, which are sets
> either manually created by people, or created by the F-13 (or later) anaconda.
>
> The idea here is that 1.x metadata contains a homehost identifier, so if some
> random disk with mdraid 1.x metadata is plugged in, the homehost won't match
> and thus it won't be auto assembled, where as sets created on the host which
The imsm part is fine with me, but not the 1.x. You could argue that it
depends on the whole-system philosophy on automatic assembly/activation
of high-level devices like lvm and md. I'm fairly certain that lvm does
not do auto-activation. More to the point, this activates only md
devices that can reasonably be believed to be local. What about the
other ones (older metadata, non-matching homehost)? Am I crazy for
caring that we seem to be aiming for as little consistency as is humanly
possible?
>
> Note that this only impacts post installation booting, and not anything happening
> while we are installing.
Right, so go ahead and push it if you want. I don't have to like the way
md behaves after installation.
Dave
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
> Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
