Doug Ledford wrote:
The upgrade from mdadm 2.6.7.1 to mdadm 3.0 is not an entirely automated process. The mdadm 3.0 package includes new naming rules on md devices (specifically, only md? and md_d? devices are allowed in /dev, all non-standard named md devices must be moved to /dev/md/). In addition, I used upstream's udev rules file. It has been revamped to support some of the new features of mdadm 3.0 and is different from our previous udev rules file.
The udev rules file for md devices is in udev package:[root@dhcp92 module]# diff /etc/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules /lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules
14c14,15
< ATTR{md/array_state}=="|clear|inactive", GOTO="md_end"
---
> ATTR{md/array_state}=="clear|inactive", GOTO="md_end"
> ATTR{md/array_state}!="?*", GOTO="md_end"
18c19
< ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*",
SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}"
---> ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*", SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}", OPTIONS+="string_escape=replace"
21c22< ENV{DEVTYPE}=="partition", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*", SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}-part%n"
---> ENV{DEVTYPE}=="partition", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*", SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}-part%n", OPTIONS+="string_escape=replace"
where it contains also recently added patch to handle remove event added to md layer (the first hunk). (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/13666) Isn't udev package the right place for the rules file (and the other two hunks change)? I also noticed that 70-mdadm.rules for linux raid member devices (automatic incremental assembly with mdadm) were removed from mdadm package. Why? Radek -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
