> -----Original Message----- > From: NeilBrown [mailto:neilb@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:11 AM > To: Kwolek, Adam > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Williams, Dan J; Ciechanowski, Ed; > Neubauer, Wojciech > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Reshape fixes (expansion) > > On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:28 +0100 Adam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > The following series adds some fixes for reshape (expansion). > > > > A while ago mdadm unit tests (suits 12 and 13) works correctly, now > I've found problems. > > I've learned that containers created for raid5 and raid0 has > different number of blocks in mdstat. > > I've put mdstat partial output to patch description: UT FIX: imsm > container can have different blocks number > > I'm not 100% sure that this is fix (for changed behavior), not > workaround for container creation problem. > > This fix is first of fixes (3) that enables reshape (12, 13) UT. > > If you find this more as workaround, this patch is good point for > discussion what change is correct. > > > > Patches: > > FIX: compare blocks on all data disks > > FIX: Compare the same units > > makes changes for blocks computing verification. After those 2 more > patches UT (12, 13) works. > > Please let me know what you are thinking about them. It is possible > that this is not final patch also, > > but I've tried to find out what this condition should do, and change > code to archive it (IMHO). > > > > Rest of patches addresses other issues, I can observe during > expansion. > > > > BR > > Adam > > > > --- > > > > Adam Kwolek (6): > > FIX: md runs recovery instead reshape for growing single disk > raid0 array > Applied. > > > FIX: Container can be left frozen > Applied. > > > FIX: compare blocks on all data disks > > FIX: Compare the same units > No, I don't like these. > The point here is to compare the amount of data to be backed up with > the > size of one of the spare devices, because in some cases the data will > be > backed up to a spare device. > If the size of the data to be backed up is bigger than half the size of > a > spare device, then it doesn't really fit and something is wrong. > Normally the amount of data to be backed up is much much smaller than > the > size of any device. > > Maybe we just need to make the test use larger devices or smaller chunk > size, > or similar. Thank you for explanation. I'll prepare changes to UT. BR Adam > > > > UT FIX: imsm container can have different blocks number > Applied (the block numbers here are completely meaningless, so ignoring > them > is good). > > imsm: FIX: Wrong output string format > Applied. > > All pushed out to devel-3.2 > > 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
