On 11/13/2015 12:00 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > On 07.07.2015 13:54, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 07/07/2015 01:41 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote: >>> On 29.06.2015 19:36, Thomas Renninger wrote: >>>> From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=905746 >>>> >>>> Version 2: Remove 64-md-raid.rules >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh | 2 -- >>>> modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh b/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh >>>> index 3dcff38..cc4390f 100755 >>>> --- a/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh >>>> +++ b/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh >>>> @@ -26,8 +26,6 @@ if [ -n "$DM_RAIDS" ] || getargbool 0 rd.auto; then >>>> if [ "${s##$r}" != "$s" ]; then >>>> info "Activating $s" >>>> dmraid -ay -i -p --rm_partitions "$s" 2>&1 | vinfo >>>> - [ -e "/dev/mapper/$s" ] && kpartx -a "/dev/mapper/$s" 2>&1 | vinfo >>>> - udevsettle >>>> fi >>>> done >>>> done >>>> diff --git a/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh b/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh >>>> index e8de5f5..797a58e 100755 >>>> --- a/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh >>>> +++ b/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh >>>> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ install() { >>>> >>>> inst "$moddir/dmraid.sh" /sbin/dmraid_scan >>>> >>>> + inst_rules 66-kpartx.rules 67-kpartx-compat.rules >>>> + >>>> inst_libdir_file "libdmraid-events*.so*" >>>> >>>> inst_rules "$moddir/61-dmraid-imsm.rules" >>>> >>> >>> Fedora does not have 66-kpartx.rules nor 67-kpartx-compat.rules ... >>> >>> Heinz, do we need the kpartx part still? >>> >>> I reverted to kpartx, because "dmraid" adds a "p" as a seperator by default for >>> the partitions and this breaks existing installations. >>> >> >> I would recommend splitting the kpartx call into a separate udev >> rule; otherwise you'll run into timing issues with udev. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Hannes >> > > Care to share your 66-kpartx.rules 67-kpartx-compat.rules or make them > upstream? Shouldn't we agree on one naming scheme? > Sure, I'd love to. Although the 67-kpartx-compat.rules is pretty much SUSE specific, as we've messed up the device-mapper device naming (older SUSE versions would be creating device-mapper names with underscores, but the links would be using normal dashes). So it's not relevant to the general audience, but yeah I'd like to have them both included. Will be sending patches to multipath-tools covering that. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxxx +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) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
