On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:09:03PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 10:00 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> just apply some rules, so if you find a partition table _AND_ an md
>> superblock at the end, read both and you can tell if it is an md on a
>> partition or a partitioned md raid1 device.
>
>In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a device that had
>both but wasn't a raid device. And it's matching partner still existed
>too. What you are talking about would have misrecognized this
>situation, guaranteed.
then just ignore the device and log a warning, instead of doing a random
choice.
L.
It also happened to be my OS drive pair. Ignoring it would have
rendered the machine unusable.
I wonder what would have happened if it got it wrong
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@xxxxxxxxxx
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
