On Apr 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:32:00 -0500 Brassow Jonathan <jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Brassow Jonathan wrote: >> >>> >>> 5-of-5: changing the check to 'saved_raid_disk >= 0' would be fine, but I think I should initialize 'saved_raid_disk' to -1 in dm-raid.c then normally. Right now, an nominal initial value is not set - meaning it is '0'. (When a device comes back from a failure, 'saved_raid_disk' is assigned its old position.) >> >> ... that's not quite right. I do call 'md_rdev_init' which sets 'saved_raid_disk' to -1. Then, if the device has returned after a disappearance, I set 'saved_raid_disk' to it's old position. Therefore, 'saved_raid_disk >= 0' would be fine and wouldn't require me to set -1 in dm-raid.c. >> >> brassow >> > > Excellent. I've taken the liberty of making that change in the patch you > sent me and converted your RFC-by: to Signed-off-by: > > Result can be viewed at or near the top of > > http://neil.brown.name/git?p=md;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-next > > Please confirm that is OK to submit (eventually for 3.5). Perfect, thank-you. brassow -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
