On 26.4.2016 10:47, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
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.
Ok, so it seems it is completely chaotic -
As in RHEL/Fedora there is largely hacked mpath udev rule file,
which is then responsible for using partx?
While in SUSE this seems to be handled by broken old unmaintained kpartx udev
rules file (as the file is useless - wondering how could do anything useful on
SUSE)
AFAIK seems we miss communication between Ben with Hannes here :)
As logically it seem calling kpartx rule calls belong to kpartx package.
However kpartx upstream rule file is for systems from 2007 year.
So I'd have assumed lots of current mpath RHEL rule patches should be
relocated to kpartx rules.
Leaving this to you guys...
Regards
Zdenek
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
