Bug 1009291 - Systemd is not handling correctly multiple swap partition
Systemd is not handling correctly multiple swap partition
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1003867
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: systemd (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: systemd-maint
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-09-18 02:47 EDT by Jorge Villaseñor
Modified: 2013-10-06 16:29 EDT (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-10-06 16:29:42 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
udevadmn info for one of the partitions (2.39 KB, text/plain)
2013-09-18 02:47 EDT, Jorge Villaseñor
no flags Details
udevadmn info for the other partition (2.40 KB, text/plain)
2013-09-18 02:48 EDT, Jorge Villaseñor
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Jorge Villaseñor 2013-09-18 02:47:10 EDT
Created attachment 799128 [details]
udevadmn info for one of the partitions

Description of problem:
Having two swap partitions, systemd consistently mark one of them as failed.

It is the same issue as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789573 but instead of having the same by-path, my udevadm -q -n /dev/sd[ab]4 output shows the same disk/by-partlabel/swap.

It could also be related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003867 but not the same.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
systemd 204

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. You need to have 2 [disk with a] swap partition[s]
2. enable them on fstab

Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
Comment 1 Jorge Villaseñor 2013-09-18 02:48:01 EDT
Created attachment 799129 [details]
udevadmn info for the other partition
Comment 2 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2013-09-18 09:28:46 EDT
Relevant parts:

P: /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/ata3/host2/target2:0:0/2:0:0:0/block/sda/sda4
N: sda4
S: disk/by-id/ata-ST2000DM001-9YN164_W1E1JW4T-part4
S: disk/by-id/wwn-0x5000c5005c69c8f8-part4
S: disk/by-label/Swap
S: disk/by-partlabel/swap                                      <--------------
S: disk/by-partuuid/7a98f25f-4133-4beb-afc4-8441ab3349c1
S: disk/by-uuid/c2ff7330-92fd-4c7f-9691-f9c09f48a66c
E: DEVLINKS=/dev/disk/by-id/ata-ST2000DM001-9YN164_W1E1JW4T-part4 /dev/disk/by-id/wwn-0x5000c5005c69c8f8-part4 /dev/disk/by-label/Swap /dev/disk/by-partlabel/swap /dev/disk/by-partuuid/7a98f25f-4133-4beb-afc4-8441ab3349c1 /dev/disk/by-uuid/c2ff7330-92fd-4c7f-9691-f9c09f48a66c
E: DEVNAME=/dev/sda4
E: DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/ata3/host2/target2:0:0/2:0:0:0/block/sda/sda4
E: DEVTYPE=partition

P: /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/ata5/host4/target4:0:0/4:0:0:0/block/sdb/sdb4
N: sdb4
S: disk/by-id/ata-ST2000DM001-9YN164_W1E1JNL4-part4
S: disk/by-id/wwn-0x5000c5005c6145d6-part4
S: disk/by-label/SWAPb
S: disk/by-partlabel/swap                                      <--------------
S: disk/by-partuuid/18eb80a9-2665-415e-b10d-8782b2faf0ea
S: disk/by-uuid/00260b04-61c3-4c2c-85c3-db4f77a5024c
E: DEVLINKS=/dev/disk/by-id/ata-ST2000DM001-9YN164_W1E1JNL4-part4 /dev/disk/by-id/wwn-0x5000c5005c6145d6-part4 /dev/disk/by-label/SWAPb /dev/disk/by-partlabel/swap /dev/disk/by-partuuid/18eb80a9-2665-415e-b10d-8782b2faf0ea /dev/disk/by-uuid/00260b04-61c3-4c2c-85c3-db4f77a5024c
E: DEVNAME=/dev/sdb4
E: DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/ata5/host4/target4:0:0/4:0:0:0/block/sdb/sdb4
E: DEVTYPE=partition

I guess this is perfectly allowed, and should work.
Comment 3 Jorge Villaseñor 2013-09-18 11:48:03 EDT
Doesn't that mean that they have the same symlink pointing to both devices?

Anyway, I am getting the same behavior as the bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789573.

Reading that bug I thought that could be the cause. Since this by-label/swap is allowed, I am not sure what can cause the issue.

Still I can see this wrong behavior. Do you have any other idea on what can be wrong?
Comment 4 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2013-10-06 16:29:42 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1003867 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.