Hi Ben, > This is a proposal to try and bring the Redhat and SuSE > multipath.rules > closer. There are a couple of changes that I'd like some input on. Thanks for making this so explicit. Perhaps we should have done the same for our recent changes, in particular d7188fcd "multipathd: start daemon after udev trigger". > The big change is moving the kpartx call into the multipath > rules. Half > of the current kpartx.rules file is about creating symlinks for > multiple > types of dm devices. The other half auto-creates kpartx devices on > top > of multipath devices. Since it is only creating kpartx devices on top > of > multipath devices, I've moved the these rules into multipath.rules, > or > rather, I've replaced them with the redhat rules in multipath.rules. > The > biggest difference is the kpartx isn't run on every reload. It works > with the 11-dm-mpath.rules code to not run kpartx on multipathd > generated reloads or when there aren't any working paths. It does > remember if it didn't get to run kpartx when it was supposed to > (because > there were no valid paths or the device was suspended) and will make > sure to run it on the next possible uevent. > > The other change is the redhat multipath rules remove the partition > device nodes for devices claimed by multipath. The udev rule will > only > do this one time (both to keep from running partx on every event, and > so > that if users manually reread the partition table, we don't keep > removing them when clearly they are wanted). Redhat does this because > we > had multiple customer issues where they were using the scsi > partitions > instead of the kpartx devices. Obviously, with setting the partition > devices to not ready and clearing their fs_type, this isn't > essential, > but it has helped make customers do the right thing. > > Cc: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > kpartx/kpartx.rules | 8 -------- > multipath/multipath.rules | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > All of this makes sense to me. But I may not overlook all the possible pitfalls in the udev rules, so please wait for Hannes' comments, too. Regards Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
