Hi Neil,
any comment on this?
Alex.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> I noticed that mdadm may decide that array is dirty, based on the
> non-freshest drive. This happens, e.g., when there is a drive failure
> during initial resync, and then array is stopped and re-assembled. The
> failed drive still has a valid sb->resync_offset, so if this drive is
> visible during assembly, array will be considered dirty, even though
> the rest of the drives have sb->resync_offset==MaxSector.
>
> Do you think array should be considered as dirty in this case? Because
> if the failed drive was not visible during assembly, array would have
> been considered clean.
>
> The below patch is only to demonstrate the possible fix. The idea is
> that we decide that array is dirty only according to up-to-date
> drives. Currently the "clean" flag is initialized from the first
> superblock, which might not be the freshest one.
>
> I haven't tested it at all. If you think the direction is reasonable,
> I will test.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.
>
>
> diff --git a/Assemble.c b/Assemble.c
> index 23695e7..42cbbd5 100644
> --- a/Assemble.c
> +++ b/Assemble.c
> @@ -929,7 +929,6 @@ int Assemble(struct supertype *st, char *mddev,
> st->minor_version = 90;
>
> st->ss->getinfo_super(st, content, NULL);
> - clean = content->array.state & 1;
>
> /* now we have some devices that might be suitable.
> * I wonder how many
> @@ -1122,6 +1121,7 @@ int Assemble(struct supertype *st, char *mddev,
> #ifndef MDASSEMBLE
> sysfs_init(content, mdfd, 0);
> #endif
> + clean = 1; /* Assume that array is clean, until we see otherwise */
> for (i=0; i<bestcnt; i++) {
> int j = best[i];
> unsigned int desired_state;
--
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
