On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:10:48 +0000 "Labun, Marcin" <Marcin.Labun@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >From ee52735e3576dc998a837229ac5b9fb3ed1faeaf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marcin Labun <marcin.labun@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2010 15:47:19 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] IMSM: do not rebuild the array if a non-redundant sub-array with failed disks is present
>
> Now Intel metadata handler rebuilds all sub-arrays even if one of them
> is non-redundant. In case of failed sub-array, failed disks are just replaced
> with new ones in the metadata mapping. The data for failed disk is not restored
> even the disk is present in the system. This fix requests to remove the failed
> disk from container to let the process of rebuilding the array with failed
> member. If the disk is physically pulled out of the system, the disk is removed
> from container automatically by exiting udev rules.
This mostly makes sense, though...
>
> + /*
> + * If there are any failed disks check state of the other volume.
> + * Block rebuild if the other one is failed until failed disks
> + * are removed from container.
> + */
This comment was a lot clearer to me that the description at the top :-)
However:
> + if (failed) {
> + dprintf("found failed disks in %s, check if there is another"
> + "sub-array\n",
> + dev->volume);
> + /* check the state of the other volume allows for rebuild */
> + allowed = imsm_rebuild_allowed(a, (inst == 0) ? 1 : 0, failed);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This seems to imply that there are only ever at most 2 volumes in a
container. Is that really true? The rest of the code seems to assume that
there could be several.
If there can be more than two, then you need a loop over all the 'other'
devices to check that they are allowed to rebuild.
Thanks,
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
