From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: Re: LVM on dmraid breakage Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 21:57:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20070803195749.GA27271@percy.comedia.it> References: <46B0EAEF.6090305@cfl.rr.com> <20070802065012.GA28687@percy.comedia.it> <46B254E4.60700@cfl.rr.com> <20070803081133.GB939@percy.comedia.it> <46B36F7A.2090601@cfl.rr.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46B36F7A.2090601@cfl.rr.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: dm-devel@redhat.com, ataraid-list@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:10:02PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: >I agree with moving the partition detection code to user space, but >trying to undo it after the fact doesn't help because udev is already >processing the add events. Also you do not need to remove the >partitions so long as pvscan understands that it shouldn't be using them. which is the modification i proposed to lvm tools, isn't it? >Udev is supposed to be the new model for enumerating devices and i know that, and i will withdraw from this discussion, since it might get to an useless flame war. Is there any technical reason for not having lvm tools filter out devices that are used by device mapper? besides dmraid, think of multipath. Regards, L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 21:57:50 +0200 From: Luca Berra Message-ID: <20070803195749.GA27271@percy.comedia.it> References: <46B0EAEF.6090305@cfl.rr.com> <20070802065012.GA28687@percy.comedia.it> <46B254E4.60700@cfl.rr.com> <20070803081133.GB939@percy.comedia.it> <46B36F7A.2090601@cfl.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46B36F7A.2090601@cfl.rr.com> Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: [dm-devel] Re: LVM on dmraid breakage Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dm-devel@redhat.com, ataraid-list@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:10:02PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: >I agree with moving the partition detection code to user space, but >trying to undo it after the fact doesn't help because udev is already >processing the add events. Also you do not need to remove the >partitions so long as pvscan understands that it shouldn't be using them. which is the modification i proposed to lvm tools, isn't it? >Udev is supposed to be the new model for enumerating devices and i know that, and i will withdraw from this discussion, since it might get to an useless flame war. Is there any technical reason for not having lvm tools filter out devices that are used by device mapper? besides dmraid, think of multipath. Regards, L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \