Hi Neil, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx> > To: "Andrei Warkentin" <andreiw@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:22:39 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] MD: Allow restarting an interrupted incremental recovery. > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:22:11 -0400 Andrei Warkentin > <andreiw@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > If an incremental recovery was interrupted, a subsequent > > re-add will result in a full recovery, even though an > > incremental should be possible (seen with raid1). > > > > Solve this problem by not updating the superblock on the > > recovering device until array is not degraded any longer. > > > > Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > Thanks. I've applied this and pushed it to my for-next branch. > > My current HEAD use pr_debug instead of dprintk so I fixed that. > > Also I realised that clearing saved_raid_disk when an array is not > degraded > is no longer enough. We also need to clear it when the device > becomes > In_sync. > Consider a 3-drive RAID1 with two drives missing. You add back one > of them > and when it is recovered it needs saved_raid_disk cleared so that the > superblock gets written out. > > So below is what I applied. > Wouldn't all drives being In_sync imply the array is not degraded - i.e. can the check for a degraded array be omitted then, at all? I.e. if after the resync the In_sync bit is set - drop saved_raid_role. A -- 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
