On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 3:35 AM Michael Hudson-Doyle <
<email address hidden>> wrote:
> Is this a KVM or an LPAR?
LPAR
> There is another bug about dasds passed
> through to KVMs not being identified correcty.
>
No this is unrelated to KVM passthrough.
Note: A single dasd in an LVM (the default install setup) works fine.
Note2: to be clear - this is not the mixed (dasd+fcp) LVM, that I reported
in a different bug.
But building two LVMs one 2*dasd and the other one 2*fcp seems to make it
enter a code path that eventually tries sfdisks on the dasd and due to that
breaks.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 3:35 AM Michael Hudson-Doyle <
<email address hidden>> wrote:
> Is this a KVM or an LPAR?
LPAR
> There is another bug about dasds passed
> through to KVMs not being identified correcty.
>
No this is unrelated to KVM passthrough.
Note: A single dasd in an LVM (the default install setup) works fine.
Note2: to be clear - this is not the mixed (dasd+fcp) LVM, that I reported
in a different bug.
But building two LVMs one 2*dasd and the other one 2*fcp seems to make it
enter a code path that eventually tries sfdisks on the dasd and due to that
breaks.