On 04/13/2017 04:37 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:50:06PM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
Hi Neil,
Looking at trying to phase out the ioctl usage, I am trying to introduce a
helper for the 'is the array valid' situation.
Now looking at places like Incremental.c (around like 557 in my current
tree):
/* 7b/ if yes, */
/* - if number of OK devices match expected, or -R and there */
/* are enough, */
/* + add any bitmap file */
/* + start the array (auto-readonly). */
if (md_get_array_info(mdfd, &ainf) == 0) {
if (c->export) {
printf("MD_STARTED=already\n");
} else if (c->verbose >= 0)
pr_err("%s attached to %s which is already active.\n",
devname, chosen_name);
rv = 0;
goto out_unlock;
}
I am wondering if there are any side effects/assumptions about
GET_ARRAY_INFO that I am not considering? Basically I am making the
assumption that if /sys/block/md<X>/md exists, the array is valid.
what does 'valid' really mean? md<x>/md exists after a md device is allocated,
the md device might not have any under layer disks bound yet.
The code in Incremental.c already deals with sysfs higher up in the code, so
I guess the question is if the above test is even relevant anymore?
Alternative, do we need export a new state in sysfs 'running'?
I'd assume 'running' means the md device has a personality attached. See
array_state_show(), !running == 'clear' or 'inactive'.
Good point, I guess what I am trying to figure out is what is assumed
when ioctl(GET_ARRAY_INFO) returns 0 and how do we map it to sysfs?
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
