On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:02:16 +0800
Tim Burgess <ozburgess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We recently sent some a snippet of error logs to a vendor when
> returning a faulty drive, and received 2 replacement drives back
> (how's that for service!?) due to them misinterpreting the following
> message as an error on sdc (sdb was the drive that actually failed).
>
> Mar 13 01:02:26 mds001 kernel: raid1: sdc2: redirecting sector 3355736
> to another mirror
>
> This seems to originate from the following snippet of code:
>
> if ((disk=read_balance(conf, r1_bio)) == -1) {
> **************
> } else {
> const bool do_sync = bio_rw_flagged(r1_bio->master_bio, BIO_RW_SYNCIO);
> r1_bio->bios[r1_bio->read_disk] =
> mddev->ro ? IO_BLOCKED : NULL;
> r1_bio->read_disk = disk;
> bio_put(bio);
> bio = bio_clone(r1_bio->master_bio, GFP_NOIO);
> r1_bio->bios[r1_bio->read_disk] = bio;
> rdev = conf->mirrors[disk].rdev;
> if (printk_ratelimit())
> printk(KERN_ERR "raid1: %s: redirecting sector %llu to"
> " another mirror\n",
> bdevname(rdev->bdev,b),
> (unsigned long long)r1_bio->sector);
>
>
> Which as far as I can tell prints the name of the device on which the
> request is retried, rather than the failed device. Is that what we
> want?
Yes, I can see that message is misleading.
As for "what do we want?" I don't really know. Anything that isn't
misleading is probably fine. It is tempting to just remove the message.
I don't think it is possible to reliably get the name of the failed drive at
this point - it could possibly have been removed already( though that is
unlikely).
I'll probably just change it to something like:
raid1: redirecting sector %llu to other mirror: %s
Thanks for the report.
NeilBrown
--
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
