From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1071C43334 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-341-Nn77s8MuOZ-1UaQ_WBVRUg-1; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 13:00:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Nn77s8MuOZ-1UaQ_WBVRUg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 640FE185A7A4; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA90C53360; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D87D1947061; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CC61947040 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id E3A39C53361; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast08.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.24]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF58EC53360 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81543815D23 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-657-g1Tm5yKwOAKVmmG9VntEjQ-1; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 13:00:51 -0400 X-MC-Unique: g1Tm5yKwOAKVmmG9VntEjQ-1 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A15991F992; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5308313A8C; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 6ptMEkEnomK9MQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 09 Jun 2022 17:00:49 +0000 Message-ID: From: Martin Wilck To: Xose Vazquez Perez , "Schremmer, Steven" Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 19:00:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7510d16e-b821-3030-16cf-ef39854109f5@gmail.com> References: <20220514230148.139675-1-xose.vazquez@gmail.com> <20220514230148.139675-5-xose.vazquez@gmail.com> <6d6f31c7e9c03eead93cc5b528bcd8979446fc91.camel@suse.com> <8ab798a93edf33a550f0c78f113d8943d76916b6.camel@suse.com> <7510d16e-b821-3030-16cf-ef39854109f5@gmail.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.8 Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 4/9] multipath-tools: add NetApp E-Series NVMe to hardware table X-BeenThere: dm-devel@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: device-mapper development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "George, Martin" , Hannes Reinecke , ng-eseries-upstream-maintainers , DM-DEVEL ML , Christophe Varoqui Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "dm-devel" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.8 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 18:56 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > On 6/9/22 18:49, Martin Wilck wrote: >=20 > > IIUC NetApp's concern is not the generic entry, but the entries > > mentioning E-Series or it's OEM products in NVMe configuration > > explicitly. I also have some trouble understanding the concern, but > > NetApp is in charge of these entries, so I believe we should > > respect > > what they're saying. > >=20 > > With the late patches I submitted, the generic NVMe defaults would > > work > > for the NetApp devices without those being explicitly mentioned. I > > hope > > this is ok for everyone. Only the no_path_retry setting would get > > lost, > > which is acceptable IMO because this is rather an admin setting > > than > > product-specific. >=20 > And now (IMO) it is worse, because NetApp NVMe arrays are under a > generic config. >=20 > What do they hate?=A0 just ".product =3D "NetApp E-Series"" ??? I can't speak for Steve, but yes, this is what I understood. The concern is that someone would read the entry and conclude that this configuration is officially endorsed and supported by NetApp. This is why I added the disclaimer in the man page. Regards, Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel