Dear Martin,
thank you for your patches?
Am Freitag, den 01.03.2013, 23:28 +0100 schrieb mwilck@xxxxxxxx:
> Without calling load_container at this point, the
> info structure may be missing some important information.
> In particular, information about secondary DDF RAID levels
> may be wrong if information is only read from a single disk.
>
> If this fails, fall back to the previous code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Detail.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Detail.c b/Detail.c
> index ab49803..9e52de8 100644
> --- a/Detail.c
> +++ b/Detail.c
> @@ -103,13 +103,21 @@ int Detail(char *dev, struct context *c)
> * We want the name of the container, and the member
> */
> int dn = st->container_dev;
> + int cfd, err;
>
> member = subarray;
> container = map_dev_preferred(dev2major(dn), dev2minor(dn), 1, c->prefer);
> + cfd = open_dev(st->container_dev);
> + if (cfd >= 0) {
> + err = st->ss->load_container(st, cfd, NULL);
> + close(cfd);
> + if (err == 0)
> + info = st->ss->container_content(st, subarray);
> + }
> }
>
> /* try to load a superblock */
> - if (st) for (d = 0; d < max_disks; d++) {
> + if (st && !info) for (d = 0; d < max_disks; d++) {
Is it ensured that `info` has been always NULL without your patch? Maybe
also add a comment too.
> mdu_disk_info_t disk;
> char *dv;
> int fd2;
Thanks,
Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
