Ask about LVM inconsistencies only in storageinit step.
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:44 +0100, Radek Vykydal wrote:
> The patch does essentially the same thing as commit for disk initialization
> question. The difference is that when user chooses LVM reinitialization, it is
> done immediately (not as planned action as with disk initialization) so the
> user wouldn't be asked again anyway without the patch (he would be asked if he
> chose to ignore).
> I also made one function more readable in the patch.
The patch looks good.
We should probably either queue reinitializations for both disklabels
and lvm or else do them both immediately. Do we have a reason to handle