Re: problems with raid=noautodetect

[Luca Berra <bluca@comedia.it>]

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 12:38:25PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>Neil Brown wrote:
>> On Friday May 26, bluca@comedia.it wrote:
>I'd suggest the following.
>
>"All the other devices" are included or excluded from the list of devices
>to consider based on the last component in the DEVICE line.  Ie. if it
>ends up at !dev, all the rest of devices are included.  If it ends up at
>dev (w/o !), all the rest are excluded.  If memory serves me right, it's
>how squid ACLs works.
>
>There's no need to introduce new keyword.  Given this rule, a line

as i said the new keyword is to warn on configurations that do not
account for changing device-ids, and if we change the syntax a new
keyword would make it clearer. In case the user tries to use a new
configuration on an old mdadm.

>The only possible issue I see here is that with udev, it's possible to
>use, say, /dev/disk/by-id/*-like stuff (don't remember exact directory
>layout) -- symlinked to /dev/sd* according to the disk serial number or
>something like that -- for this to work, mdadm needs to use glob()
>internally.

uhm
i think that we would better translate any device found on a DEVICE (or
DEVICEFILTER) line to the corresponding major/minor number and blacklist
based on that.
nothing prevents someone to have an udev rule that creates a device
node, instead of symlinking.

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \