On 17.02.2016 14:06, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> writes: >> On 02/16/2016 09:46 PM, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 17 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>> >>>> I am totally fine with this, however we should make mdadm >>>> fail if run against a pre-2.6.28 kernel then. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Jes >>> >>> I would suggest protecting the >>> >>> if (fd >= 0) ioctl(fd, BLKRRPART, 0); if (mdi) >>> sysfs_uevent(mdi, "change"); >>> >>> code with >>> >>> if (get_linux_version() < 2006028) >>> >>> That should be completely safe - 2.6.28 and later do this (if >>> needed). >>> >> +1. >> >> Yes, this is the best solution. > > Sebastian indicates it only works if the kernel patch he submitted is > applied too - should we tweak the mdadm version check to match the next > upstream kernel, or stick with it as is here? Sorry, it also works if dropping the sending of the change event in the kernel as well. This seems to be the preferred solution so far. So for kernels still sending the change event, the problem is not fixed this way. But your mdadm commit also doesn't make it worse. Cheers, Sebastian -- 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
