From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zdenek Kabelac Subject: Re: multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:39:54 +0200 Message-ID: <571F295A.6060607@redhat.com> References: <571DF852.6030604@redhat.com> <571E0E7A.4050703@redhat.com> <20160425173838.GE26117@octiron.msp.redhat.com> <571F0009.3080903@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <571F0009.3080903@suse.de> 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 List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be remo= ved not >>> to confuse distributors. >>> Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. Ben, >>> Hannes, Xos=E9, Peter are you ok with my deleting the udev rules ex= ample ? >> >> I am personally fine with kpartx.rules being deleted. Red Hat doesn't >> package it. >> > Well, we do. We use kpartx to generate partitions for multipath and > dmraid, so we do need this rule. > Please do not delete it; if so I will only have to re-add it again > in a SUSE-specific patch. Hi Can you please elaborate what is the 'specific' need of SUSE for patch? AFAIK there should be no need for it - all identifiers are not tracked by 10-dm.rules It has whole logic about device state built-in. So what exactly would you need to trace in kpartx.rules ? Regards Zdenek