On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:01:49 +0400 Andrey Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> В Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:17:19 +1100
> NeilBrown <ne...@suse.de> пишет:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:16:24 +0900 Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:54:42PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:10:28 -0800 Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:31:45AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > > Alternately, is there some "all devices have been probed, nothing
> > > > > > new will
> > > > > > appear unless it is hot-plugged" event. That would be equally
> > > > > > useful (and
> > > > > > probably mirrors what hardware-RAID cards do).
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there's no way to ever know this in a hotplug world, sorry.
> > > > > Especially with USB devices, they show up when they show up, there's
> > > > > no
> > > > > "oh look, the bus is all scanned now and all devices currently plugged
> > > > > in are found" type knowledge at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then there are hotplug PCI systems where people slam in PCI cards
> > > > > whenever they feel like it (remember, thunderbolt is PCI express...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry,
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > > > Surely something must be possible.
> > >
> > > For USB, nope, there isn't, sorry.
> > >
> > > > Clearly a physical hot-plug event will cause more devices to appear, but
> > > > there must come a point at which no more (non-virtual) devices will
> > > > appear
> > > > unless a physical event happens?
> > >
> > > Not for USB, sorry.
> > >
> > > The USB bus just announces devices when it finds them, there is no "all
> > > is quiet" type signal or detection.
> > >
> > > Same for PCI hotplug, devices can show up at any point in time, you
> > > never know when, and you don't know when all devices are "found".
> > >
> > > sorry,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Hmmm... OK. USB doesn't bother me a lot, but PCI is important.
> >
> > I guess I'll just have to settle for a timeout much like the current
> > device-discovery timeout that systemd has.
> > Still hoping someone can tell me how to plug into that though...
> >
>
> If information about array name or other identification is available in
> udev rule (I see reference to device node only) what you can do is to
> start timer with "now+5second" (pick your timeout) that simply fires off
> mdadm -IRs for specific array. Something like
>
> mdadm-last-resort@.timer
>
> [Timer]
> OnCalendar=+5s
>
> mdadm-last-resort@.service
>
> [Service]
> Type=oneshot
> ExecStart=/sbin/mdadm -IRs %n
>
> udev rule
>
> ... SYSTEMD_WANTS=mdadm-last-resort@$ENV{SOMETHING_UNIQUE}.timer
>
Thanks. This certainly looks interesting and might be part of a solution.
However it gets the timeout test backwards.
I don't want to set the timeout when the array starts to appear. I want to
set the time out when someone wants to use the array.
If no-one is waiting for the array device, then there is no point forcing it.
That's why I want to plug into the timeout that systemd already has.
Maybe that requirement isn't really necessary though. I'll experiment with
your approach.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
