On 04/26/2016 10:39 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should >>>> be removed not >>>> to confuse distributors. >>>> Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev >>>> ruleset. Ben, >>>> Hannes, Xosé, Peter are you ok with my deleting the udev >>>> rules example ? >>> >>> I am personally fine with kpartx.rules being deleted. Red Hat >>> doesn't >>> package it. >>> >> Well, we do. We use kpartx to generate partitions for multipath and >> dmraid, so we do need this rule. >> Please do not delete it; if so I will only have to re-add it again >> in a SUSE-specific patch. > > Hi > > Can you please elaborate what is the 'specific' need of SUSE for patch? > > AFAIK there should be no need for it - all identifiers are not > tracked by > 10-dm.rules > > It has whole logic about device state built-in. > > So what exactly would you need to trace in kpartx.rules ? > We use kpartx.rules to call 'kpartx' itself for creating the partition devices on top of any multipath or dmraid devices. If that logic has been moved into other, generic, device-mapper rules please let me know. But until then we need the kpartx.rules. file. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
