On 05/03/2017 10:27 AM, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
On 05/02/2017 03:40 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 05/02/2017 07:40 AM, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
On 05/01/2017 06:35 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
Then mdadm opens the devive, clears any old content/signatures the data
area
On 05/02/2017 03:40 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/02/2017 07:40 AM, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
>> On 05/01/2017 06:35 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 28 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
Then mdadm opens the devive, clears any old content/signatures the data
area may contain, then closes it - t
On 05/02/2017 07:40 AM, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
On 05/01/2017 06:35 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
Then mdadm opens the devive, clears any old content/signatures the data
area may contain, then closes it - this generates the third event -
which is the "synthetic cha
I'm sorry, but I didn't read all your words.
You seemed to be telling me about extra complexity in udev, and extra
complexity that you think belongs in mdadm, which together might achieve
your vision for how things should work.
But to me, complexity is the enemy. Give me "simple" any day.
Neil
On 05/01/2017 06:35 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
>
>> On 04/28/2017 05:55 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 26 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
>>>
On 04/20/2017 11:35 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> If we wanted an more permanent udev rule, we would need to record
On Fri, Apr 28 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
> On 04/28/2017 05:55 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/20/2017 11:35 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
If we wanted an more permanent udev rule, we would need to record the
devices that should be ignored in the f
On 04/28/2017 05:55 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
>
>> On 04/20/2017 11:35 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> If we wanted an more permanent udev rule, we would need to record the
>>> devices that should be ignored in the filesystem somewhere else.
>>> Maybe in /run/mdadm.
On Wed, Apr 26 2017, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 11:35 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20 2017, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> ...
>>> Second, isn't this going to be racey if you have multiple arrays
>>> running? I am wondering if we cannot find a solution that relies on a
>>> permanently in
On 04/20/2017 11:35 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20 2017, Jes Sorensen wrote:
...
>> Second, isn't this going to be racey if you have multiple arrays
>> running? I am wondering if we cannot find a solution that relies on a
>> permanently installed udev rule that we enable/disable with syste
