From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: problems with raid=noautodetect Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 07:02:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20060529050242.GM8203@percy.comedia.it> References: <4471B188.3060400@umit.at> <17522.15774.526526.244768@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20060526075308.GC8203@percy.comedia.it> <17530.30389.862288.268450@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17530.30389.862288.268450@cse.unsw.edu.au> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:21:09PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: >> 3) introduce "DEVICEFILTER" or similar keyword with the same meaning at >> the actual "DEVICE" keyboard > >If it has the same meaning, why not leave it called 'DEVICE'??? the idea was to warn people that write DEVICE /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 ARRAY /dev/md0 ....... that it might break since disk naming is not guaranteed to be constant. >However, there is at least the beginnings of a good idea here. > >If we assume there is a list of devices provided by a (possibly >default) 'DEVICE' line, then > >DEVICEFILTER !pattern1 !pattern2 pattern3 pattern4 > >could mean that any device in that list which matches pattern 1 or 2 >is immediately discarded, and remaining device that matches patterns 3 >or 4 are included, and the remainder are discard. > >The rule could be that the default is to include any devices that >don't match a !pattern, unless there is a pattern without a '!', in >which case the default is to reject non-accepted patterns. >Is that straight forward enough, or do I need an > order allow,deny >like apache has? > I think that documenting the feature would be enough L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \