From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Benjamin Marzinski" Subject: Re: multipath-tools 0.7.4 failure to remove device Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:45:30 -0600 Message-ID: <20180117184530.GS5638@octiron.msp.redhat.com> References: <20180112083833.apsybil4ux4d2y32@jak-x230> <1515789339.3409.33.camel@suse.com> <20180112214700.ljxlypo5nar6oh3m@jak-x230> <1515795481.9139.8.camel@suse.com> <20180115154424.fcjuudt7phxrks6q@jak-x230> <1516032730.5699.38.camel@suse.com> <20180115162658.wlccxhlaq56byykg@jak-x230> <1516034784.5699.44.camel@suse.com> <20180116202946.GO5638@octiron.msp.redhat.com> <20180117093842.ywogyfsztihwaie7@jak-x230> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180117093842.ywogyfsztihwaie7@jak-x230> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Julian Andres Klode Cc: Guan Junxiong , Martin Wilck , development mailing list List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:38:42AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:30:46PM -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > > RedHat also removes your patches to force ignore_wwids off and imply -n > > > > 64e27ec066a001012f44550f095c93443e91d845 > > ffbb886a8a16cb063d669cd76a1e656fd3ec8c4b > > I only see you reverting the former, in > > 0013-RH-trigger-change-uevent-on-new-device-creation.patch > Oops. It appears that the other patch got lost in the shuffle of converting over to the new git repo, and rebasing, and since nothing uses -i anymore, its absence was never noticed. I suppose that sort of undercuts my argument that we need to keep -i working the way I orginally envisioned. Thanks for noticing. > > > As a side note, RedHat also adds code to automatically fire off a change > > uevent on all the path devices on the first time a multipath device is > > created, so that all the path devices get correctly claimed by multipath > > after the fact, on the first create. It's currently part of the same > > patch that reverts the two commits listed above, but I have no problem > > with posting it as a seperate patch. I obviously have no problem with > > reverting those two commits upstream either. But I don't feel horribly > > burdened with carrying them as RedHat patches. > > I like that patch, that sounds like a good idea. I'll post this as an RFC, and we can sort it out along with the other patches. -Ben > > -- > debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev > ubuntu core developer i speak de, en