On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:26:38 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why do you refuse to freeze the array if it's not "idle"? What will > > happen is that current recover/resync will abort, drives will be > > added, and on unfreezing, array will resume (restart?) recovery with > > all drives. If array was resyncing, however, it will start recovering > > the newly added drives, because kernel prefers recovery over resync > > (as we discussed earlier). > Indeed, since dea3786ae2cf74ecb0087d1bea1aa04e9091ad5c, I see that you > agree to freeze the array also in case it is recovering. I guess I did..... though I don't remember seeing the email that you have quoted. I can see it in my inbox, but it seems that I never replied. Maybe I was too busy that day :-( If there other outstanding issues, feel free to resend. (If I don't reply it is more likely to be careless than deliberate, so in general you should feel free to resend if I don't respond in a week or so). NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
