NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:12:09 -0500 Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx writes: >> > From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > I have received some issues for when creating an array using a >> > /dev/mdX name, the matching symlink in /dev/md/X isn't >> > created. Whereas if you create /dev/md/X, /dev/mdX is created >> > automatically. >> > >> > I was trying to see if there was a better way of dealing with this, >> > but I couldn't find one. If you have suggestions for a better solution >> > I am all ears. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> Hi Neil, >> >> Any thoughts on this one? > > Thanks for the reminder.... > > I'm not sure that I really see the problem. > > "I ask it to create /dev/mdX and it doesn't create /dev/md/X". > > Well ... no. You didn't ask it to. If you want it to create /dev/md/X, > then ... ask it to. > > /dev/mdX is the canonical name. It always gets created. > /dev/md/X is a convenient alias. It gets created if requested. > > Is there really a problem here worth solving? > > Maybe I missed something. I have had complaints in Fedora from the installer people that they rely on the /dev/md/ name being created when they create a new device. It is also inconsistent because /dev/md/<X> will be created if you run 'mdadm -As' later on. I don't see it as a major issue, but I can see why it is frustrating for some and I think there is something to be said for being consistent in behavior. Cheers, Jes -- 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
