From: Christophe Varoqui <christophe.varoqui@free.fr>
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: path checker open() flags, devmapper ioctl()
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:55:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1208465743.11770.100.camel@plop> (raw)
Notice to reader : real questions are hidden in this obfuscated
message ! I'll mark them with ** to augment the chances for them being
answered :)
Path checker maintainers,
** would you object to my changing the checkers open() flags from O_RDWR
to O_RDONLY ? ** Directio and readsector0 would not object, and all
other checkers use the file descriptor to submit SG_IO ioctls which do
not require Write capability.
Re-reading the SG documentation at http://sg.torque.net/sg/sg_io.html, I
understand it should be ok. In real life, scsi_id does exactly that for
example.
The particular issue I'm facing is that on a RHEL5 box presented with
EMC Symmetrix R2 Logical Units (write-protected LU receiving SRDF
updates from R1 LU), the checker bails out on open(/dev/sd?, O_RDWR|
O_NONBLOCK) returning EROFS. opening with O_RDONLY grants us a usable
fd, which give the checker a chance to report the actual path state.
I'd like to fix the checker inconsistency, but we'll hit another wall
short after that : because the device mapper refuses to honor the
R2-multipath-tables loading without the read-only devmap option.
This behavior is new to RHEL5. R2 LU could perfectly be multipathed in
RHEL4.
** Does someone have insight about this new kernel behaviour, and about
the multipath layer desired behaviour in this context ? ** I personnaly
would rather not care for promoting a devmap from RO to RW upon R1-R2
split, and the even more tricky demoting from RW to RO (what about io
flush ?) upon un-spliting.
Regards,
cvaroqui
next reply other threads:[~2008-04-17 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-17 20:55 Christophe Varoqui [this message]
2008-04-17 21:21 ` path checker open() flags, devmapper ioctl() Christophe Varoqui
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-04-18 19:43 Christophe Varoqui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1208465743.11770.100.camel@plop \
--to=christophe.varoqui@free.fr \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.