Thanks for the clarification, Neil. I will really try to provide (at
least a partial) patch, together with the other patch I promised to
test...
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 1:09 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:14:28 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> what is the reason that in some places (like Detail()), the code tests
>> for all desc_nrs possible (value read from superblock or MaxDisks
>> macro):
>> for (d = 0; d < max_disks; d++) {
>> disc.number = d;
>> ioctl(fd, GET_DISK_INFO, &disk)
>>
>> and in other places (like Monitor()), the loop goes only up to :
>> array.raid_disks + array.nr_disks.
>
> Bug.
>
>>
>> After all, disk.number (which is rdev->desc_nr in kernel) is merely a
>> position of the disk entry in the dev_roles[] array in the superblock,
>> and has no relation to the raid slot of the disk. Shouldn't the code
>> always check max_disks possible?
>
> Yes.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
--
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
