Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-28 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 04/28/2016 12:46 AM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > Aside from dropping the socket, it checks that /etc/multipath.conf > > exists, and that the kernel wasn't started with "nompath". Also it runs > > "multipath -A" this reads the

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-28 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 04/28/2016 12:46 AM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > Like I said, Red Hat doesn't use them. I'll post our multipath.rules > > shortly. > > > Which would be cool. > I was actually hoping to meet you in Raleigh last week, but then

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-28 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 04/28/2016 12:46 AM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:53:48AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 04/25/2016 10:14 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: >>> On 04/25/2016 02:56 PM, Christophe Varoqui wrote: >>> Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-27 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:53:48AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 04/25/2016 10:14 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > On 04/25/2016 02:56 PM, Christophe Varoqui wrote: > > > >> Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be > >> removed not to confuse distributors. > >> > >>

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-26 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
On 26.4.2016 10:47, Hannes Reinecke wrote: On 04/26/2016 10:39 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote: On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: Hi, Those example udev rules are

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-26 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 04/26/2016 10:39 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: Hi, Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-26 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote: On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: Hi, Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be removed not to confuse distributors. Distributors

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 04/25/2016 10:14 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > On 04/25/2016 02:56 PM, Christophe Varoqui wrote: > >> Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be >> removed not to confuse distributors. >> >> Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. >> Ben, Hannes,

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: >>Hi, >>Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be removed not >>to confuse distributors. >>Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez
On 04/25/2016 02:56 PM, Christophe Varoqui wrote: > Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be > removed not to confuse distributors. > > Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. > Ben, Hannes, Xosé, Peter are you ok with my deleting the udev rules

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: >Hi, >Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be removed not >to confuse distributors. >Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. Ben, >Hannes, Xosé, Peter are you ok

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Peter Volkov
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Christophe Varoqui < christophe.varo...@opensvc.com> wrote: > Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. > Of course, there is no pressure on downstream distributor on what configuration/udev rules should be used. Yet it's always good to have

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Christophe Varoqui
Hi, Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be removed not to confuse distributors. Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. Ben, Hannes, Xosé, Peter are you ok with my deleting the udev rules example ? Best regards, On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM,

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Peter Volkov
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > On 25.4.2016 14:10, Peter Volkov wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Zdenek Kabelac > > wrote: >> >> On 25.4.2016 12:52, Peter Volkov wrote: >> >>

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Peter Volkov
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > On 25.4.2016 12:52, Peter Volkov wrote: >> >> There is a problem: udev does not create partitions for multipath devices >> in >> case I use kpartx.rules provided with multipath sources. I found that udev >> always go

Re: [dm-devel] multipath-0.5.0 still provides broken udev rules

2016-04-25 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
On 25.4.2016 12:52, Peter Volkov wrote: Hi, guys. There is a problem: udev does not create partitions for multipath devices in case I use kpartx.rules provided with multipath sources. I found that udev always go to kpartx_end after following line of rules: ENV{DM_TABLE_STATE}!="LIVE",