Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Do not check for "problematic" disks in ActionList._pre_process #1038

Conversation

vojtechtrefny
Copy link
Member

The _find_active_devices_on_action_disks function originally
prevented from making any changes on disks with active devices
(active LVs, mounted partitions etc.) This was changed in
b72e957 and the check currently prevents only reformatting
the disklabel on such disks which should be already impossible
on disks with an existing partition.

The check currently also makes it impossible to add a new disk to
an existing VG -- the new disk has an active device (the VG) in
our storage model so creating a new partition table (even if it
didn't have one before) marks it as "problematic".


This is a less conservative version of #1037 removing the check completely. I mean, what could go wrong, right?

Copy link
Contributor

@japokorn japokorn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

The _find_active_devices_on_action_disks function originally
prevented from making any changes on disks with active devices
(active LVs, mounted partitions etc.) This was changed in
b72e957 and the check currently prevents only reformatting
the disklabel on such disks which should be already impossible
on disks with an existing partition.

The check currently also makes it impossible to add a new disk to
an existing VG -- the new disk has an active device (the VG) in
our storage model so creating a new partition table (even if it
didn't have one before) marks it as "problematic".
@vojtechtrefny vojtechtrefny force-pushed the 3.5-devel_disklabel-ignore-problematic-disks branch from 4474895 to 399e9dd Compare May 4, 2022 13:07
@vojtechtrefny
Copy link
Member Author

Jenkins, test this please.

1 similar comment
@vojtechtrefny
Copy link
Member Author

Jenkins, test this please.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants