On 09/26/2014 02:21 PM, Francis Moreau wrote: [...] > >>>> mdadm --stop --scan <<< > > [ 89.975162] md_open(): md125 opened by mdadm [930] > [ 89.975305] md_release(): md125 released by mdadm [930] > [ 89.977434] md_open(): md125 opened by mdadm [932] > [ 89.978813] md_open(): md125 opened by mdadm [930] > [ 89.979365] md_release(): md125 released by mdadm [932] > [ 89.979693] md_open(): md125 opened by systemd-udevd [931] > [ 89.985790] md_release(): md125 released by systemd-udevd [931] > [ 90.179911] md_release(): md125 released by mdadm [930] > [ 90.180168] md_open(): md127 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.180187] md_release(): md127 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.180199] md_open(): md126 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.180205] md_release(): md126 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.180556] md_open(): md126 opened by mdadm [930] > [ 90.180653] md_release(): md126 released by mdadm [930] > [ 90.180690] md_open(): md126 opened by mdadm [930] > [ 90.180758] md_open(): mdX opened by mdadm [459] What is this 'mdX' device that mdadm operates on ? It also doesn't have a counterpart release() call. > [ 90.180995] md_open(): md125 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.181056] md_release(): md125 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182717] md_open(): md127 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182725] md_release(): md127 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182732] md_open(): md126 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182761] md_release(): md126 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182770] md_open(): md125 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182775] md_release(): md125 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.182940] md_release(): md126 released by mdadm [930] > [ 90.183167] md_open(): md127 opened by mdadm [930] > [ 90.183257] md_release(): md127 released by mdadm [930] > [ 90.183288] md_open(): md127 opened by mdadm [930] > [ 90.183461] md_open(): md127 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.183488] md_release(): md127 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.183499] md_open(): md125 opened by mdadm [459] > [ 90.183505] md_release(): md125 released by mdadm [459] > [ 90.183686] md_release(): md127 released by mdadm [930] > > >> Probably there is a 'change' event happening just before the 'remove' event, >> and udev runs "mdadm" on the 'change' event, and that ends up happening after >> the device has been removed. >> >> Is this really a problem? Can't you just ignore it and pretend it isn't >> there? > > Well, if you list the block devices that the kernel detected in order to > operate on them, it could. I don't know exactly what would be the result > to use it but it could confuse some tools. > > Is there a way to check that the 'ghost' device has been removed by > poking sysfs ? > > Thanks > -- 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
