Hi!
On Mon 28 Feb 2022 23:28, Xiao Ni wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> In rhel, we have a rhel only udev rule that checks
> DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG. Maybe it's the reason why you don't
> notice this. Besides DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG, it still checks
> other flags.
>
Ah yes, that's it!
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:10 PM Peter Rajnoha wrote:
>
> On Thu 17 Feb 2022 11:58, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 09:09 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, mwi...@suse.com wrote:
> > > > From: Martin Wilck
> > > >
> > > > device-mapper sets the flag
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Neil,
>
> On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 10:36 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > > The flags that DM use for udev were introduced before systemd
> > > project
> > > even existed. We needed to introduce the
> > > DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG
> > > to have a
> The flags that DM use for udev were introduced before systemd project
> even existed. We needed to introduce the DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG
> to have a possibility for all the "other" (non-dm) udev rules to check
> for if there's another subsystem stacking its own devices on top of DM
>
On Thu 17 Feb 2022 11:58, Martin Wilck wrote:
> The main reason is that SYSTEMD_READY=0 is set too late, in 99-systemd-
> rules, and only on "add" events:
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/bfae960e53f6986f1c4d234ea82681d0acad57df/rules.d/99-systemd.rules.in#L18
>
> I guess the
On Thu 17 Feb 2022 11:58, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 09:09 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, mwi...@suse.com wrote:
> > > From: Martin Wilck
> > >
> > > device-mapper sets the flag DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG to 1
> > > for
> > > devices which are unusable.
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, mwi...@suse.com wrote:
> From: Martin Wilck
>
> device-mapper sets the flag DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG to 1 for
> devices which are unusable. They may be no set up yet, suspended, or
> otherwise unusable (e.g. multipath maps without usable path). This
> flag does not
