Instead of preventing the removal of devices that would render existing
raid10 or raid1 impossible, warn but go ahead with it; the rebalancing
code is smart enough to use different block group types.
Should the refusal remain, so that we'd only proceed with a
newly-introduced --force option or so?
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva <ol...@lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 12 ++++--------
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 4d5b29f..507afca 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -1281,18 +1281,14 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char
*device_path)
if ((all_avail & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10) &&
root->fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices <= 4) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: unable to go below four devices "
- "on raid10\n");
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out;
+ printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: going below four devices "
+ "will turn raid10 into raid1\n");
}
if ((all_avail & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1) &&
root->fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices <= 2) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: unable to go below two "
- "devices on raid1\n");
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out;
+ printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: going below two devices "
+ "will lose raid1 redundancy\n");
}
if (strcmp(device_path, "missing") == 0) {
--
1.7.4.4
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
