Hide Forgot
Reproducible on recent RHEL7. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #947815 +++ (discussed with Kay and Harald on IRC, Harald can reproduce it) After mdadm -C ..., udev sometimes doesn't show 'ID_FS_TYPE = linux_raid_member' for a member device of the new RAID. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): systemd-199-1.fc20.x86_64 kernel-3.9.0-0.rc4.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 How reproducible: ~ 10% Steps to Reproduce: 1. run this loop: for i in $(seq 100); do echo ---------------; mdadm -S /dev/md0; wipefs -a /dev/sdb1; wipefs -a /dev/sdb2; udevadm settle; udevadm info /dev/sdb1 | grep ID_FS_TYPE; mdadm -C --force -l 0 -n 2 /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb2; udevadm settle; udevadm info /dev/sdb1 | grep ID_FS_TYPE; done | tee log 2. grep ID_FS_TYPE log | wc -l Actual results: less than 100 'ID_FS_TYPE' strings found in the log Expected results: exactly 100 'ID_FS_TYPE' strings found in the log Additional info: It is reproducible only with two devices on one disk, i.e. sdb1 and sdb2. With two different disks, e.g. sda1 and sdb1, it works well. Also, when 'udevadm info /dev/sdb1' doesn't show ID_FS_TYPE, it is still *not* updated after ~1 minute or 'udevadm settle'. Only 'udevadm trigger' helps. (This indicates that something did not generate some event, but I really don't know udev or kernel internals). --- Additional comment from Harald Hoyer on 2013-04-08 16:17:10 EDT --- With the patched mdadm, I am not able to hit the bug. --- Additional comment from Jes Sorensen on 2013-04-11 09:35:38 EDT --- Slightly modified patch posted upstream - lets see what the maintainer says to it.
see the Fedora bug for attachments
There was a discussion upstream, see Message-ID: <20130429105720.593fe99b> The conclusion was pretty much NO
Per comment #3, upstream didn't want to take this path - this is not going to change.
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal this decision by reopening this request.
hmm.. I don't see rejection from upstream, only questions and me ranting
Are you sure you want customers in RHEL-7 in this state?