On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:22:57AM +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.
I would not, mdadm should be still able to create the base device name
if needed. Aliases could be left to udev.
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,
/sys has the same issue as /dev.
there is no md sys node before the device is created.
apart from this small issue, mdadm should be able to control md via
sysfs as well (i.e. sync_action).
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?
Please, NO, it took ages to get people and some distributions to stop
using raidtools in favor of mdadm, don't do this mess again.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@xxxxxxxxxx
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
