On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 03:29:53PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > Now that I look more closely at the named md situation, it seems it > doesn't quite face the same issue as dm. With dm, you must not > canonicalize the name when generating the partition device name, since > there is no /dev/dm-0p1 ( so we would fail to open the partition dev > node ). With md, there is a /dev/md0p1, in addition to the > /dev/md/foo1 symlink pointing to it, so either way should work. > > I guess now the purpose of this patch is purely for the user > experience? If a user runs parted on /dev/md/foo then they expect > parted to state that is what it is working on instead of /dev/md0? Is > the reverse true, or should parted always favor the name even if run > on the number? What if it is invoked on /dev/disk/by-id?
I think parted should always stick with the name the user gives it. I'm not sure what side-effects that would have so that's why I only changed it for /dev/md/ I don't think looking up specific majors is useful here, the actual problem is that when something uses libparted (eg. anaconda) to open a device and then later tries to look it up by that same path it won't find it if the symlink is followed and the name changed. Personally, I can't think of a situation where I'd ever want the name I give it to be changed, whether I'm using the cli or libparted. Maybe we should drop that whole bit and just use the path we're given? -- Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT)
pgp3BsIAxOYNm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
