also sprach Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> [2008.10.26.2356 +0100]: > Greeting. > This is a Request For Comments.... Good morning! [...] > I'm also wondering if I should include a udev 'rules' file for md > in the mdadm distribution. Obviously it would be no more than > a recommendation, but it might give me a voice in guiding how udev > interacted with mdadm. I would really like to have a clear separation of competencies. Ideally, mdadm never creates any devices but leaves it all to udev, and all configuration about alternate names ("symlinks") is done in the udev rules file. I know mdadm needs the devices for the ioctls(). However, much of what it does with ioctl should already be possible with /sys. Thus, in my ideal world, I imagine mdadm to be a manipulator of /sys, instructing the kernel to do stuff with components and arrays, and have udev create and remove corresponding devices in response to kernel events. I realise this would require a revamp of mdadm, and might actually be better done in a new software designed to eventually replace mdadm. But is this a way forward with which you could befriend yourself? -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxx> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "a compliment is like a kiss through a veil." -- victor hugo
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)