>> http://www.redhat.com/archives/ataraid-list/2007-June/msg00037.html > >I've had a look at the patch and I admit that the source I'm working >from doesn't contain this change and since I wasn't subscribed to the >list at that time I don't know the history. > >It's not obvious, from that message (or messages in the thread index), >what the patch actually does to prevent a SEGV and I don't see how this >deals with the issue I'm trying to resolve, the SEGV when writing the >meta data. > >Can someone explain the intent of the patch in the message above please? The patch above applies to isw_read_extended(). The segfault occurs when the metadata is smaller than 512 bytes when it tries to remove metadata from the second disk in the set. The patch allocates an extra sector even when the metadata is only one sector long. - Eric _______________________________________________ Ataraid-list mailing list Ataraid-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list
