Sebastian Parschauer <sebastian.riemer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Since there is pretty broad agreement on this approach, I have pushed the fix out for mdadm. Jes -- 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
