Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track?
I've now noticed the following:
# ~/mdadm-2.6.3/mdadm -v -A /dev/md0 /dev/sd[d-e]
mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0
mdadm: /dev/sdd is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1.
mdadm: /dev/sde is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1.
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 10:21 -0600, Maurice Hilarius wrote:
Alberto Alonso wrote:
PATA (IDE) with
Master and Slave drives is a bad idea as, when one drive fails, the
other of the Master Slave pair often is no longer usable.
On discrete interfaces, with all drives configured as Master
On Sunday October 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track?
I've now noticed the following:
# ~/mdadm-2.6.3/mdadm -v -A /dev/md0 /dev/sd[d-e]
mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0
mdadm: /dev/sdd is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1.
mdadm:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3277
There is a seq_printf here that isn't being passed a 'seq'.
Howeve as the code is inside #ifdef MD_DEBUG, nobody noticed.
Also remove some extra spaces.
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
### Diffstat output
./drivers/md/raid0.c | 10
When an array is started read-only, MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED can be set but
no recovery will be running. This causes 'sync_action' to report the
wrong value.
We could remove the test for MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, but doing so would
leave a small gap after requesting a sync action, where 'sync_action'
would
From: Iustin Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 'degraded' attribute is useful to quickly determine if the array is
degraded, instead of parsing 'mdadm -D' output or relying on the other
techniques (number of working devices against number of defined devices, etc.).
The md code already keeps track of
Whenever a read error is found, we should attempt to overwrite with
correct data to 'fix' it.
However when do a 'check' pass (which compares data blocks that are
successfully read, but doesn't normally overwrite) we don't do that.
We should.
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###
This kmem_cache_create is creating a cache that already exists. We
could us the alternate name, just like we do a few lines up.
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
### Diffstat output
./drivers/md/raid5.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
