Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> Neither of these chunks should be needed. >> ->raid_disk of an active devices is only set to -1 if ->hot_remove_disk >> succeeds. >> You have make ->hot_remove_disk fail for Journal devices, so ->raid_disk >> will be >= 0. > > I agree the raid5_remove_disk part is superficial, I fixed in an updated > patch. I still didn't get the point what can prevent a journal disk is > removed. Currently the raid_disk is always -1 for journal disk. If it > should be >=0, what value it should be? We give journal disk a special > role '0xfffd' currently. Oh, are we leaving the ->raid_disk at -1 for the journal? I hadn't noticed that. I don't feel comfortable it. Too much code assumes that <0 means "not in use". Probably set it to 0, and add a check to setup_conf(), and adjust the check in run(). md_update_sb() probably need to be careful of journals too (to not change ->recovery_offset). I wonder what 'slot_show' should report for the journal.... maybe "journal"?? NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
