I think I'm leaning towards auto-creating names if they look like
standard names (or are listed in mdadm.conf?), but required
auto=whatever to create anything else.
The auto= option has the disadvantage that it is different for
partitionable and regular arrays -- is there no way to detect from
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday July 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
the following patch aims at solving an issue that is confusing a lot of
users.
when using udev, device files are created only when devices are
registered with the kernel, and md devices are
On Tuesday July 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why to test for udev at all? If the device does not exist, regardless
if udev is running or not, it might be a good idea to try to create it.
Because IT IS NEEDED, period. Whenever the operation fails or
Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday July 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
the following patch aims at solving an issue that is confusing a lot of
users.
when using udev, device files are created only when devices are
registered with the kernel, and md devices are registered only when
started.
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:46:03AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 09:14:38AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
However
+
+ /* if we are using udev and auto is not set, mdadm will almost
+* certainly fail, so we force it here.
+*/
+ if (autof == 0
Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why to test for udev at all? If the device does not exist, regardless
if udev is running or not, it might be a good idea to try to create it.
Because IT IS NEEDED, period. Whenever the operation fails or not, and
Perhaps it was just a typo and you
Jason Lunz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there's a udevd you can check for. I don't know whether that's a better
test or not.
It's not. For example, the Debian package does also start this udevd on
package upgrades, even when a 2.4 kernel is running which definitely
has no udev support :)
regards
Neil Brown wrote:
I guess I could test for both, but then udev might change
again I'd really like a more robust check.
Maybe I could test if /dev was a mount point?
IIRC you can have diskless machines with a shared root and nfs mounted
static /dev/
David
--
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 09:14:38AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
I'm worried that this test is not very robust.
On my Debian/unstable system running used, there is no
/dev/.udevdb
though there is a
/dev/.udev/db
I guess I could test for both, but then udev might change
again I'd really
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 09:14:38AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
However
+
+ /* if we are using udev and auto is not set, mdadm will almost
+* certainly fail, so we force it here.
+*/
+ if (autof == 0 access(/dev/.udevdb,F_OK) == 0)
+ autof=2;
+
I'm
Hello,
the following patch aims at solving an issue that is confusing a lot of
users.
when using udev, device files are created only when devices are
registered with the kernel, and md devices are registered only when
started.
mdadm needs the device file _before_ starting the array.
so when using
On Monday July 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
the following patch aims at solving an issue that is confusing a lot of
users.
when using udev, device files are created only when devices are
registered with the kernel, and md devices are registered only when
started.
mdadm needs the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Maybe I could test if /dev was a mount point?
Any other ideas?
there's a udevd you can check for. I don't know whether that's a better
test or not.
Jason
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo
