From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Manage: Inform udev about device removal when stopping
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:33:08 -0500
Message-ID: <wrfjlh6j6y3v.fsf@redhat.com>
References: <1455633877-4813-1-git-send-email-sebastian.riemer@profitbricks.com>
	<1455633877-4813-3-git-send-email-sebastian.riemer@profitbricks.com>
	<wrfjio1oeemz.fsf@redhat.com> <56C36487.3060201@profitbricks.com>
	<56C36D20.6030001@suse.de> <wrfja8n0bi8n.fsf@redhat.com>
	<8737sstmbh.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <56C41B3A.90902@suse.de>
	<wrfj1t8ba3l7.fsf@redhat.com> <56C472C5.4010602@profitbricks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <56C472C5.4010602@profitbricks.com> (Sebastian Parschauer's
	message of "Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:16:53 +0100")
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Sebastian Parschauer <sebastian.riemer@profitbricks.com>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>, Brassow Jonathan <jbrassow@redhat.com>, Artur Paszkiewicz <artur.paszkiewicz@intel.com>, systemd-devel@freedesktop.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Sebastian Parschauer <sebastian.riemer@profitbricks.com> writes:
> On 17.02.2016 14:06, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes:
>>> On 02/16/2016 09:46 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 17 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am totally fine with this, however we should make mdadm
>>>>> fail if run against a pre-2.6.28 kernel then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Jes
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest protecting the
>>>>
>>>> if (fd >= 0) ioctl(fd, BLKRRPART, 0); if (mdi) 
>>>> sysfs_uevent(mdi, "change");
>>>>
>>>> code with
>>>>
>>>> if (get_linux_version() < 2006028)
>>>>
>>>> That should be completely safe - 2.6.28 and later do this (if
>>>> needed).
>>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is the best solution.
>> 
>> Sebastian indicates it only works if the kernel patch he submitted is
>> applied too - should we tweak the mdadm version check to match the next
>> upstream kernel, or stick with it as is here?
>
> Sorry, it also works if dropping the sending of the change event in the
> kernel as well. This seems to be the preferred solution so far. So for
> kernels still sending the change event, the problem is not fixed this
> way. But your mdadm commit also doesn't make it worse.

Since there is pretty broad agreement on this approach, I have pushed
the fix out for mdadm.

Jes