From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: testing the /dev/cciss/c0d0 device names Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 10:29:39 +0100 Message-ID: <56655183.7000007@dachary.org> References: <56632EAC.3040105@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hUVECCVExpR1kCPlhopfvtwJnPr84uD57" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:45443 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754935AbbLGJ3m (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:29:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ilya Dryomov Cc: Ceph Development , "Stolte, Felix" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --hUVECCVExpR1kCPlhopfvtwJnPr84uD57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 06/12/2015 20:15, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> ceph-disk has special handling for device names like /dev/cciss/c0d1 [= 1] and it was partially broken when support for device mapper was introdu= ced. Ideally there would be a way to test that support when running the c= eph-disk suite [2]. Do you know of a way to do that without having the ha= rdware for which this driver is designed ? >> >> Maybe this convention (/dev/cciss/c0d0 being mapped to /sys/block/ccis= s!c0d0 is not unique to this driver and I could use another to validate t= he name conversion from X/Y to X!Y and vice versa is handled as it should= ? >=20 > No, it's not unique. driver core does strreplace(s, '/', '!') at > register time to work around such block devices. The list includes > DAC960, aoeblk, cciss, cpqarray, sx8 and probably more, but I don't > think anything widespread uses this naming scheme. IIRC dm actually > won't let you name a device with anything that contains a slash. >=20 > If you really wanted you could set up aoeblk I guess, but a simple unit= > test should be be more than enough ;) Thanks for the information. I'll refrain from attempting integration test= s and try to make it solid with unit tests :-) Cheers >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Ilya >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --hUVECCVExpR1kCPlhopfvtwJnPr84uD57 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZlUYMACgkQ8dLMyEl6F22NcgCgjuIF0M7GgOvwv7QBeAZw0FS5 QSQAn3WdEhbOkFdBIfQx2UNQezke/Haj =MXyq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hUVECCVExpR1kCPlhopfvtwJnPr84uD57--