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/)
