On 10/22/11 02:49, NeilBrown wrote: > Hi Jes, > > I have applied the 7 patches you sent. > > However I have question mark over part of this one: > > >> > @@ -451,9 +456,10 @@ int Incremental(char *devname, int verbose, int runstop, >> > devnum = fd2devnum(mdfd); >> > close(mdfd); >> > sysfs_free(sra); >> > - rv = Incremental(chosen_name, verbose, runstop, >> > - NULL, homehost, require_homehost, autof, >> > - freeze_reshape); >> > + rv = Incremental_container(st, chosen_name, homehost, >> > + verbose, runstop, autof, >> > + freeze_reshape); >> > + map_unlock(&map); >> > if (rv == 1) >> > /* Don't fail the whole -I if a subarray didn't >> > * have enough devices to start yet > You have replaced a call to Incremental with a call to Incremental_container. > I feel that is significant enough that I would have liked to have seen it > discussed in the changelog comment. > > You seem have have open-coded Incremental and then removed all the bits that > you don't need in this case - which is that vast majority of it. > But you didn't include the call to ->load_content(). > > So I have put it back in because I'm sure it must be harmless (Because it was > there already) but it may not be needed. > > If you have thoughts on this, please let me know. Hi Neil, There is a perfectly good explanation for this: The reason is that the guy who wrote the initial patch is an idiot! In fact, said idiot spent most of Friday pulling his hairs out trying to figure out why the modified mdadm would boot fine on a systemd based system but fail on a sysvinit based system. The result being the patch bombing you were exposed to yesterday :) Thanks for catching this, much appreciated! Jes -- 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
