On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 03:11:30PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 09:57 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 14:41 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 03:18:37PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 14:47 -0700, Brian Bunker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Subsequent volumes after the first one are discovered via unit > > > > > attentions triggering the udev rule which calls scan-scsi- > > > > > target. > > > > > The SCSI devices being discovered without creating the > > > > > corresponding > > > > > multipath devices seems to be a bad default. We would like to > > > > > control as much as possible from the target side to dictate > > > > > initiator > > > > > behavior. This comes as a regression to how it previously > > > > > worked. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Bunker <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I'm fine with this, but keep in mind that distributions will > > > > probably > > > > override this anyway. Red Hat and SUSE have had different > > > > defaults > > > > for > > > > this basically forever. At least enterprise distros won't risk > > > > regressions because of changing defaults. > > > > > > > > Ben, what's your opinion wrt the patch? > > > > > > tl;dr: I think "yes" makes more sense than "smart". > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to hear the "voice of the user" at this point. So if > > anyone except Ben, Brian, and myself has read this far, please speak > > up > > (and read on if you have the patience)! > > > > Well, nobody has spoken up for 3 months. > > Reconsidering the past discussion, I think we shouldn't change this > default. As argued previously, I believe that the majority of multipath > users install some distribution package. Distros either change the > default by patching (like SUSE and Red Hat) or keep the upstream > default. The first class of distros won't change their defaults, so for > them it's just extra work (modifying the downstream patches) without > user benefit. For the second class of distros, changing the upstream > default would cause an unexpected change in behavior for end users. > People who compile the upstream code themselves should have the > knowledge to set the default to suit their needs. > > Thoughts? Disagreement? I think leaving it alone makes sense. -Ben > > Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
