On 02/22/12 23:04, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:59:59 +0100 Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have seen this come up on the list a couple of times, and also had >> bugs filed over it, since this used to 'work'. Making the printed >> error message a little more explicit should hopefully make it clearer >> why this is being rejected. >> >> Thoughts? > > While I'm always happy to make the error messages more helpful, I don't think > this one does :-( > > The reason for the change was that people seemed to often use "--add" when > what they really wanted was "--re-add". > --add will try --re-add first, but it if that doesn't succeed it would do the > plain add and destroy the metadata. > > So I introduced the requirement that if you want to destroy metadata, you > need to do it explicitly (and I know that won't stop people, but hopefully it > will slow them down). > > Also, this is not at all specific to raid1 - it applies equally to > raid4/5/6/10. Yeah I realize it is not ideal. The reason I tried to make it more descriptive is that I have been hit with a couple of bug reports where users suddenly found that things no longer behave like they used to and just file a bug against it, because the error message doesn't spell it out in flashing neon. I was trying to improve the message somehow, but I am sure my attempt wasn't perfect. The goal was to try and reduce the number of bug reports over this by making it more obvious/explicit, so if you have a suggestion for how to do so in a better way, I am all game. Cheers, 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
