Re: More Hot Unplug/Plug work

[Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]

On 04/28/2010 05:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Labun, Marcin wrote:
>>> Should an array be split (not assembled) if a domain paths are
>>> dividing array into two separate DOMAIN?
>>
>> I don't think so.  Amongst other things, this would make it possible to
>> render a machine unbootable if you had a type in a domain path.  I think
>> I would prefer to allow established arrays to assemble regardless of
>> domain path entries.
> 
> This is what I was calling the 'enforce=' policy in previous mails.
> Whether to block, warn, or ignore arrays that span a domain.  I can see
> someone wanting to have something like enforce=platform to make sure we
> Linux tries to assemble an array that the option-rom can't put together.

I would suggest that the proper way to handle this is to warn on
assembling an array that spans boundaries but proceed with the assembly
(including incremental), warn and require a force flag on creating an
array that spans boundaries, and warn and require the force flag to
automatically use devices that span boundaries.

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
              GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]