On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:22 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> 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.
This would then require that we have a working udev in our initrd
images. It would greatly increase the complexity of early booting as a
result.
> 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?
>
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
