On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:32:23 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Neil, > yes, I will try to produce a patch (although I am using git, I have > never done patches yet). If you are using git, then patches are easy: git show --format=email > > But I don't understand why do you require 'err' to be set. I would say > that when there is a "DeviceDisappeared" event plus --scan is set, > then you should remove. (And also perhaps if this array does not > appear in the device list provided by the user). A DeviceDisappeared event sets ->err to 1. So testing ->err is an easy way to test if the device disappeated. It doesn't matter if the device was listed by the user: if --scan is set we will find it again anyway. NeilBrown > > Alex. > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:36 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:32:12 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi everybody, > >> looking at the code of Monitor.c and doing some tests with it, I see > >> that it is capable of detecting new arrays, when they appear in > >> /proc/mdstat (if --scan is given). However, once array is added to > >> 'statelist', it is never removed from there. Is this intentional? > >> Perhaps only if --scan is given, and device disappears from > >> /proc/mdstat, then it should be removed from monitoring, otherwise it > >> could stick there forever, even though the array has been gone long > >> time ago. And if it appears again, it will be picked up anyways. > >> > > > > You are right - arrays are never removed. > > > > Is that a problem? Probably not, though I guess you could probably create > > a scenario where there were lots of inactive devices cluttering memory. > > > > Is it worth fixing? I don't know - it depends on how intrusive the patch is. > > We would only want to remove arrays with ->err set if 'scan' was set, but > > when it is, it possible makes sense. > > > > Want to try creating a patch? > > > > NeilBrown > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
