Re: [PATCH] Use udev rules to create dmraid /dev/mapper/ devices

Harald Hoyer
2015-11-13T11:00:38Z

On 07.07.2015 13:54, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 01:41 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> On 29.06.2015 19:36, Thomas Renninger wrote:
>>> From: Hannes Reinecke <hare-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=905746
>>>
>>> Version 2: Remove 64-md-raid.rules
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>> modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh | 2 --
>>> modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh b/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh
>>> index 3dcff38..cc4390f 100755
>>> --- a/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh
>>> +++ b/modules.d/90dmraid/dmraid.sh
>>> @@ -26,8 +26,6 @@ if [ -n "$DM_RAIDS" ] || getargbool 0 rd.auto; then
>>> if [ "${s##$r}" != "$s" ]; then
>>> info "Activating $s"
>>> dmraid -ay -i -p --rm_partitions "$s" 2>&1 | vinfo
>>> - [ -e "/dev/mapper/$s" ] && kpartx -a "/dev/mapper/$s" 2>&1 | vinfo
>>> - udevsettle
>>> fi
>>> done
>>> done
>>> diff --git a/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh b/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh
>>> index e8de5f5..797a58e 100755
>>> --- a/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh
>>> +++ b/modules.d/90dmraid/module-setup.sh
>>> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ install() {
>>>
>>> inst "$moddir/dmraid.sh" /sbin/dmraid_scan
>>>
>>> + inst_rules 66-kpartx.rules 67-kpartx-compat.rules
>>> +
>>> inst_libdir_file "libdmraid-events*.so*"
>>>
>>> inst_rules "$moddir/61-dmraid-imsm.rules"
>>>
>>
>> Fedora does not have 66-kpartx.rules nor 67-kpartx-compat.rules ...
>>
>> Heinz, do we need the kpartx part still?
>>
>> I reverted to kpartx, because "dmraid" adds a "p" as a seperator by default for
>> the partitions and this breaks existing installations.
>>
>
> I would recommend splitting the kpartx call into a separate udev
> rule; otherwise you'll run into timing issues with udev.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
>

Care to share your 66-kpartx.rules 67-kpartx-compat.rules or make them
upstream? Shouldn't we agree on one naming scheme?