On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:03 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:11:29 +0200 Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> 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. >> >> >> > >> > Yes it fixes the problem. >> > >> > I had to adjust the patch to make it compile by using be64_to_cpu() >> > where needed. >> > >> >> Hmm unfortunately the following test case seems broken too, I'm not >> sure it's related however: >> >> # create a ddf array containing loop0 and loop1 >> $ cat /proc/mdstat >> Personalities : [raid1] >> md124 : active raid1 loop0[1] loop1[0] >> 84416 blocks super external:/md125/0 [2/2] [UU] >> >> md125 : inactive loop1[1](S) loop0[0](S) >> 65536 blocks super external:ddf >> >> # stop the array >> $ mdadm --stop /dev/md124 >> mdadm: stopped /dev/md124 >> $ mdadm --stop /dev/md125 >> mdadm: stopped /dev/md125 >> >> # Add only one disk >> $ mdadm -I /dev/loop0 >> mdadm: container /dev/md/ddf1 now has 1 device >> mdadm: /dev/md/array1 assembled with 1 device but not started >> >> # start the array >> $ mdadm -R /dev/md124 > > Does > mdadm -IRs > work at this point? Yes it does. > > If so, it is just a problem with my quick reimplementation of "-R". > I've made a note to look at it when I get a chance. > ok, thanks. -- Francis -- 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
