On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:10:43 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> do you think the below patch sounds reasonable?
Yes, looks good. Applied.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.
>
>
> >From 98adc21bba9cf5d77214d665f2218fd7de2623b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:04:24 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] Don't consider disks with a valid recovery offset as
> candidates for bumping up event count.
>
> When we are looking for a candidate disk to bump up the event count,
> we consider only disks that have recovery_start==MaxSector.
> However, after we find one such disk, we agree to accept more disks
> having same event count, regardless of their recovery_start.
> Be consistent and don't accept disks with a valid recovery_start at all.
>
> diff --git a/Assemble.c b/Assemble.c
> index 080993d..227d66f 100644
> --- a/Assemble.c
> +++ b/Assemble.c
> @@ -1069,6 +1069,7 @@ int Assemble(struct supertype *st, char *mddev,
> int j = best[i];
> if (j >= 0 &&
> !devices[j].uptodate &&
> + devices[j].i.recovery_start == MaxSector &&
> devices[j].i.events == current_events) {
> chosen_drive = j;
> goto add_another;
> --
> 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
