On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 08:43 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:55:41 -0800 Ross Boylan <ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > While switching the disks a RAID 1 is based on I used the --wait command
> > to wait for the rebuild to finish. It returned immediately, but a
> > subsequent query showed it had not been rebuilt. Have I misunderstood
> > something, or is this an error?
> >
> > While doing these commands a much larger rebuild was going on with a
> > different array, involving some of the same physical disks but different
> > partitions. The partitions being rebuilt are on different physical
> > disks for the different arrays.
> >
> > Here are the logs, with version info at the end (Debian Lenny + more
> > recent kernel):
> ....
>
> > markov:~# uname -a
> > Linux markov 2.6.32-5-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 12 03:40:32 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > markov:~# mdadm --version
> > mdadm - v2.6.7.2 - 14th November 2008
> >
> >
> > I notice that in this case, unlike the other array, the message during
> > the rebuild (the last detail report) does not include a line like
> > Rebuild Status : 0% complete
> >
> > I just tried --wait again to see if there was some kind of race, but
> > once again it returned immediately, though detail says the spare is
> > rebuilding.
>
> Can you test this patch to see if it fixes the problem?
>
> diff --git a/Monitor.c b/Monitor.c
> index c4d57c3..a5e7aaa 100644
> --- a/Monitor.c
> +++ b/Monitor.c
> @@ -973,7 +973,7 @@ int Wait(char *dev)
> if (e->devnum == devnum)
> break;
>
> - if (!e || e->percent < 0) {
> + if (!e || e->percent == RESYNC_NONE) {
> if (e && e->metadata_version &&
> strncmp(e->metadata_version, "external:", 9) == 0) {
> if (is_subarray(&e->metadata_version[9]))
>
>
> NeilBrown
My source for 2.6.7.2 looks somewhat different. It only has 627 lines;
I think this is the relevant code (at the end of the file):
/* Not really Monitor but ... */
int Wait(char *dev)
{
struct stat stb;
int devnum;
int rv = 1;
if (stat(dev, &stb) != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, Name ": Cannot find %s: %s\n", dev,
strerror(errno));
return 2;
}
if (major(stb.st_rdev) == MD_MAJOR)
devnum = minor(stb.st_rdev);
else
devnum = -1-(minor(stb.st_rdev)/64);
while(1) {
struct mdstat_ent *ms = mdstat_read(1, 0);
struct mdstat_ent *e;
for (e=ms ; e; e=e->next)
if (e->devnum == devnum)
break;
if (!e || e->percent < 0) {
free_mdstat(ms);
return rv;
}
free(ms);
rv = 0;
mdstat_wait(5);
}
}
The section
if (!e || e->percent < 0) {
free_mdstat(ms);
return rv;
is the only one with e->percent < 0. Is it OK to change that to
if (!e || e->percent == RESYNC_NONE) {?
Thanks.
Ross
--
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
