Malahal Naineni wrote: > Hannes Reinecke [hare@xxxxxxx] wrote: >> Malahal Naineni wrote: >>> This is where I was heading. I did some investigation and found that we >>> really need to rename to wwid based names before we finally rename to >>> the intended name. So we may actually have two passes just to rename >>> (first to wwid based names and then to actual names). Also the current >>> code doesn't do rename followed by reload even if it is needed. Someone >>> sets friendly name and some other defaults that need reload like path >>> grouping policy etc, we just rename! Probably a bug in itself. > >> You sure? I would rather rely on device-mapper uuids here. > > Hannes, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say, "You > sure?" Are you saying if I am sure about this bug? If so, you can see > yourself by swapping couple entries in the bindings file. As I said, > you will notice this bug only when you enable 'user_friendly_names' in > initrd in real life! > Well, I wanted to inquire about the double renaming thing. But >> So we can use the known naming scheme for the uuid to regenerate the >> wwid; with this we can identify/access the device and we should be able to >> make do with just one pass. > > Say, you have "mpath0[uuid0]" and "mpath1[uuid1]" loaded currently. How > can we rename mpath0 to mpath1 and vice-versa? It does require an > intermediate step of renaming to something else, right? > is a valid point. So yes, we have to put in a renaming mechanism. So falling back to wwid should work here. Sorry for the noise, you are correct here. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
