On 05/03/2016 04:14 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 08:37:08AM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
>>Ben,
>>does this patch actually break the Red Hat integration ?
>>I'm inclined to merge it if not.
>
> Like we talked about earlier, RedHat uses a completely differ
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 08:37:08AM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
>Ben,
>does this patch actually break the Red Hat integration ?
>I'm inclined to merge it if not.
Like we talked about earlier, RedHat uses a completely different
multipath.rules file, which includes some command optio
Ben,
does this patch actually break the Red Hat integration ?
I'm inclined to merge it if not.
Thanks,
Christophe
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 05:31 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:10:23PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >>
On 05/02/2016 05:31 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:10:23PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> multipath should be using the option '-i' to ignore the wwids
>> file when called from udev. Otherwise we might run into a race
>> condition with systemd and the system might not
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:10:23PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> multipath should be using the option '-i' to ignore the wwids
> file when called from udev. Otherwise we might run into a race
> condition with systemd and the system might not boot up correctly.
The race condition being? Are you t
multipath should be using the option '-i' to ignore the wwids
file when called from udev. Otherwise we might run into a race
condition with systemd and the system might not boot up correctly.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke
---
multipath/multipath.rules | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 d