On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:00:27PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2005-06-14T13:44:34, Christophe Varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm sure you understand this patch is rather invasive. I'm clearly > > reluctant to maintain backward compatibility on this point. > > > > Distributors assuming the burden of it is not nice either. > > Yes, I looked at how much the code diverged, and got pretty frightened > to be maintaining such a patch. > > > Have you pondered backporting the uevent kernel patch : it seems > > rather safe (from my seat, that is :) > > That might indeed be the cleanest solution. What exactly is needed for > it to work for multipath-tools? > For now only the following events : - block dev add - block dev remove When transport uevents get implemented we may want to use them too, but it is not the case in HEAD. Regards, cvaroqui
