Skip to content

Conversation

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

This is a followup to:
#1342
which is part of:
#1289

Our builds right now run qemu in a way that's highly sensitive
to changes in device ordering.

SCSI hardware supports a world wide name;
change our qemu invocation to use 42 (in decimal) for that.

Unfortunately because we're not using udev in our supermin
VM right now we don't get the nice /dev/disk/by-id symlink
to it. Instead just walk /sys/block manually.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cgwalters

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Regression from: coreos#1342
We'd die in pid 1 if the cache disk isn't found, which happens in
the privileged case.
This is a followup to:
coreos#1342
which is part of:
coreos#1289

Our builds right now run qemu in a way that's highly sensitive
to changes in device ordering.

SCSI hardware supports a [world wide name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Name);
change our qemu invocation to use `42` (in decimal) for that.

Unfortunately because we're not using udev in our supermin
VM right now we don't get the nice `/dev/disk/by-id` symlink
to it.  Instead just walk `/sys/block` manually.
@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

@Prashanth684 mind testing this on !x86_64?

@Prashanth684
Copy link
Contributor

@Prashanth684 mind testing this on !x86_64?

yes. will definitely try to get to this today.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

yes. will definitely try to get to this today.

Thanks! And in addition it'd be good to test the final result in:
#1289

@Prashanth684
Copy link
Contributor

yes. will definitely try to get to this today.

Thanks! And in addition it'd be good to test the final result in:
#1289

I tested #1289 which encompasses this i think .so we should be good.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

Splitting this out as a separate PR was good for clarity and to get independent testing, but I think we're good to ship #1289 fully.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants