On 10/15/2009 06:00 PM, Drew wrote: > If we're going to allow values up 99, why not include 100? To my mind, > reporting 0% -> 99% -> 100% offers about the same value as reporting > 0% -> 100%. > As it stands, instead of Rebuild100, there is RebuildFinished, which is generated by a different part of code. Setting this increment to 100 would mean no RebuildNN events at all. Also, since the events are supposed to be RebuildNN, some scripts may count on NN being exactly two digits, not more, not less. That's why my code reports 01 instead of 1, and same invariant cannot be held if you'd like Rebuild100 as well. > Also, It seems to me that increments beyond 50 aren't really that > useful. For example, reporting 0% -> 75% -> 100% seems a bit odd to > me, even for extremely fast rebuilds. Units up to 50 (0%, 50%, 100%) > make more sense. I'm pretty sure more options allow you to configure features which are mutually weird and don't make a lot of sense. mdadm is a low level tool and at the very least, common sense should be applied when dealing with it. On the other hand, if someone needed such option (setting increments >49), for whatever screwed reason, there's no point stopping them from doing so. Also, it's not dangerous, it does exactly what you would expect it to: report the value you requested, then RebuildFinished. Zdenek -- 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
