Hi Neil, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Andrei Warkentin" <andreiw@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:07:24 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] MD: Allow restarting an interrupted incremental recovery. > > > 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. > Come to think of it - checking for !mddev->degraded might not be a good idea at all. After all, you could imagine a situation where in a RAID1 array with A and B, A is recovered from B and then B goes away before the SBs are flushed due to resync finishing - you would still want A's SB to be flushed, even if array is degraded. Otherwise you'll end up with another incremental rebuilding A, and lost/inconsistent data after array became degraded (since it was going to A, but we never wrote out its SB, since array is degraded). What do you think? 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
