On 04/28/2010 05:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Labun, Marcin wrote:
>>> Should an array be split (not assembled) if a domain paths are
>>> dividing array into two separate DOMAIN?
>>
>> I don't think so. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to
>> render a machine unbootable if you had a type in a domain path. I think
>> I would prefer to allow established arrays to assemble regardless of
>> domain path entries.
>
> This is what I was calling the 'enforce=' policy in previous mails.
> Whether to block, warn, or ignore arrays that span a domain. I can see
> someone wanting to have something like enforce=platform to make sure we
> Linux tries to assemble an array that the option-rom can't put together.
I would suggest that the proper way to handle this is to warn on
assembling an array that spans boundaries but proceed with the assembly
(including incremental), warn and require a force flag on creating an
array that spans boundaries, and warn and require the force flag to
automatically use devices that span boundaries.
--
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: OpenPGP digital signature
