and don't forget it's not 100% of the time, it's about 50% of the time 3.3 gives a problem so not sure if it's an uninitialized variable or something like that? 3.2.6 works 100% of the time. And again on RAID0 - RAID1 haven't seen a problem. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/2013 01:01 AM, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:13:58 -0800 "David F." <df7729@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> output of 'mdadm --assemble --scan --no-degraded -v' (mdadm 3.2.6): >> ... >>> mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/sdc2 >> >> >> >>> >>> output1 of 'mdadm --assemble --scan --no-degraded -v' (mdadm 3.3 - >>> note using /dev/sdc2, not /dev/sdc): >> ..... >>> mdadm: /dev/sdc2 is identified as a member of /dev/md/imsm0, slot -1. >> >> So there is the problem. mdadm 3.2.6 sees no RAID superblock on sdc2, while >> mdadm 3.3 does (but should not). >> >> >> However that code hasn't changed! >> >> load_super_imsm() still starts with: >> >> >> if (test_partition(fd)) >> /* IMSM not allowed on partitions */ >> return 1; > > Well not quite - you changed that code in commit b31df436 "intel,ddf: > don't require partitions when ignore_hw_compat is set". Maybe there's > something wrong with that ignore_hw_compat logic? > > In the strace I don't see indication of test_partition having been > called, that's another hint in that direction. > > Martin > >> >> >> and test_partition hasn't changed since it was written in April 2010 for >> mdadm 3.1.3. >> >> So I'm quite perplexed. >> >> Is your mdadm-3.3 compiled from source or provided by a distro? >> >> Can you run the "mdadm --assemble" under strace and post the result? >> >> strace -o /tmp/some-file mdadm --assemble --scan ...... >> >> Thanks, >> NeilBrown > -- 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
