> -----Original Message----- > From: Williams, Dan J [mailto:dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:38 PM > To: Kwolek, Adam > Cc: neilb@xxxxxxx; linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ciechanowski, Ed; Labun, > Marcin > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] imsm: FIX: Return longer map for failure setting > > 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". Agree > > > 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? If second map exists and it is shorter than first one, we will put update in not used place. If decision about selecting longer map will be put outside, the answer is short: nothing. -- 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
