On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, NeilBrown wrote:
I think I can come up with a patch to work around this - should I do
that and submit it (and if so, where should I send it)? Or would it be
better to describe the issues I've found in more detail first?
A patch is often a good way to describe an issue in detail - though you
should include plain-language text as well of course. Patches can be
posted to this list.
Great, thanks - I'll see what I can come up with.
The only "DDF" I've come across which mdadm doesn't like is DDFv1.0
which has all multi-byte values in the "other" order, and uses a
different checksum algorithm. As I cannot find a document describing
DDFv1.0 I cannot calculate the checksum so I cannot update the metadata,
so I cannot use DDFv1.0.
The metadata claims to be DDFv1.2, but the implementation appears to be
buggy. One of the bugs is that the CRC is non-standard, but I've managed
to figure out how it calculates it, so it should be possible to update the
metadata OK. I'll include full details with the patch.
-P
If the "minor" variances you found don't prevent us from being able to
update the metadata and still have it recognised by the card, then I'm
certainly interested in a patch.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
* Ensoft Limited, Registered in Cardiff No. 3351902
* Registered Office: 13 Station Road, Finchley, London N3 2SB
--
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
