On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Kwolek, Adam <adam.kwolek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I don't understand this patch. If we are setting a new degraded disk >> migration is idle and the degraded state is set in map[0]. >> >> -- >> Dan > > This is made for future in case when support for shrinking will be added. If it's for a future unimplemented case then this is not a "FIX". > When second map is longer than first one and degradation occurs on position that is not present in first map. > It situation should be stored in map also. What's wrong with using get_imsm_map(dev, 1) for this case? -- 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
