From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kay Sievers" Subject: Re: RFC - device names and mdadm with some reference to udev. Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:13:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <18692.62860.863118.727187@notabene.brown> <20081027082257.GB1801@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net> <1225120416.4845.128.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1225120416.4845.128.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: martin f krafft , Neil Brown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 16:13, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:22 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: >> also sprach Neil Brown [2008.10.26.2356 +0100]: >> > I'm also wondering if I should include a udev 'rules' file for md >> > in the mdadm distribution. Obviously it would be no more than >> > a recommendation, but it might give me a voice in guiding how udev >> > interacted with mdadm. >> >> I would really like to have a clear separation of competencies. >> Ideally, mdadm never creates any devices but leaves it all to udev, >> and all configuration about alternate names ("symlinks") is done in >> the udev rules file. > > This would then require that we have a working udev in our initrd > images. It would greatly increase the complexity of early booting as a > result. There is no usual distro not having udev there. Kay