On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Description of the bug:
> Interrupted reshape cannot be continued using incremental assembly.
> Array becomes inactive.
>
> Cause of the bug:
> Reshape tried to continue with insufficient number of disks
> added by incremental assembly (tested using capacity expansion).
>
> Solution:
> During reshape adding disks to array should be blocked until
> minimum required number of disks is ready to be added.
Can you provide a script test-case to reproduce the problem?
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Assemble.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Assemble.c b/Assemble.c
> index 25cfec1..da43162 100644
> --- a/Assemble.c
> +++ b/Assemble.c
> @@ -1531,6 +1531,45 @@ int assemble_container_content(struct supertype *st, int mdfd,
>
> if (sra)
> sysfs_free(sra);
> + if (content->reshape_active) {
> + int disks_counter = 0;
> + int required_disks;
> + required_disks = content->array.raid_disks;
> + /* check if disks are removed */
> + if (content->delta_disks < 0)
> + required_disks += content->delta_disks;
> + /* Count devices available for assemblation.
> + * In case of incremental assemblation during reshape
> + * allow to add disks only if required minimum number of disks
> + * is already collected to avoid assemblation problem.
> + * */
> + for (dev = content->devs; dev; dev = dev->next) {
> + if (dev->disk.raid_disk >= 0)
> + disks_counter++;
> + }
> + /* allow for degradation */
> + switch (content->array.level) {
> + case 6:
> + required_disks--;
> + case 4:
> + case 5:
> + required_disks--;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> + /* check now, if number of disks allows for assemblation
> + * */
> + if (disks_counter < required_disks) {
> + if (verbose >= 0)
> + fprintf(stderr, Name
> + ": %s not assembled with %d devices "
> + "(required disks for assemblation: %i).\n",
> + chosen_name, disks_counter,
> + required_disks);
> + return 1;
> + }
> + block_subarray(content);
> + }
Checking that the expected number of disks is available is something
the existing code already does, so I don't understand why we need
another open-coded check?
--
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
