On 09/11/2013 01:35 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> I think this patch will help. The last hunk in particular should make the
> difference.
>
> Please let me know if it fixes the problem.
Thanks for figuring this out. Indeed I forgot the possibility that
secondary LBA may be unused when I wrote that code.
Are you going to fix this directly? Otherwise I might go over it,
double-check, and submit a patch.
Martin
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
> diff --git a/super-ddf.c b/super-ddf.c
> index 636d7b4..86f9bb0 100644
> --- a/super-ddf.c
> +++ b/super-ddf.c
> @@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ static int load_ddf_headers(int fd, struct ddf_super *super, char *devname)
> super->primary.openflag && !super->secondary.openflag)
> )
> super->active = &super->secondary;
> - } else if (devname)
> + } else if (devname && super->anchor.secondary_lba != ~(__u64)0)
> pr_err("Failed to load secondary DDF header on %s\n",
> devname);
> if (super->active == NULL)
> @@ -2810,7 +2810,8 @@ static int add_to_super_ddf(struct supertype *st,
> } while (0)
> __calc_lba(dd, ddf->dlist, workspace_lba, 32);
> __calc_lba(dd, ddf->dlist, primary_lba, 16);
> - __calc_lba(dd, ddf->dlist, secondary_lba, 32);
> + if (ddf->dlist == NULL || ddf->dlist->secondary_lba != ~(__u64)0)
> + __calc_lba(dd, ddf->dlist, secondary_lba, 32);
> pde->config_size = dd->workspace_lba;
>
> sprintf(pde->path, "%17.17s","Information: nil") ;
> @@ -2892,6 +2893,8 @@ static int __write_ddf_structure(struct dl *d, struct ddf_super *ddf, __u8 type)
> default:
> return 0;
> }
> + if (sector == ~(__u64)0)
> + return 0;
>
> header->type = type;
> header->openflag = 1;
--
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
