@@ -1389,6 +1392,14 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char
*device_path)
}
btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&root->fs_info->dev_replace);
+ if ((all_avail & (BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5 |
+ BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6) && num_devices <= 3)) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: unable to go below three devices "
+ "on raid5 or raid6\n");
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if ((all_avail & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10) && num_devices <= 4) {
printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: unable to go below four devices "
"on raid10\n");
@@ -1403,6 +1414,21 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char
*device_path)
goto out;
}
+ if ((all_avail & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5) &&
+ root->fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices <= 2) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: unable to go below two "
+ "devices on raid5\n");
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if ((all_avail & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6) &&
+ root->fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices <= 3) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "btrfs: unable to go below three "
+ "devices on raid6\n");
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (strcmp(device_path, "missing") == 0) {
struct list_head *devices;
struct btrfs_device *tmp;
This seems inconsistent?
-hpa
--
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
