On 05/22/2017 07:31 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, May 19 2017, Lidong Zhong wrote:
The value of sb->max_dev will always be increased by 1 when adding
a new disk in linear array. It causes an inconsistence between each
disk in the array and the "Array State" value of "mdadm --examine DISK"
is wrong. For example, when adding the first new disk into linear array
it will be:
Array State : RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
('A' == active, '.' == missing, 'R' == replacing)
Adding the second disk into linear array it will be
Array State : .AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
('A' == active, '.' == missing, 'R' == replacing)
Signed-off-by: Lidong Zhong <lzhong@xxxxxxxx>
---
super1.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/super1.c b/super1.c
index 2fcb814..811923f 100644
--- a/super1.c
+++ b/super1.c
@@ -1267,8 +1267,13 @@ static int update_super1(struct supertype *st, struct mdinfo *info,
break;
sb->dev_number = __cpu_to_le32(i);
info->disk.number = i;
- if (max >= __le32_to_cpu(sb->max_dev))
- sb->max_dev = __cpu_to_le32(max+1);
+ if (i >= max) {
+ while (max <= i) {
+ sb->dev_roles[max] = __cpu_to_le16(MD_DISK_ROLE_SPARE);
+ max += 1;
+ }
+ sb->max_dev = __cpu_to_le32(max);
+ }
This part of the patch is OK....
random_uuid(sb->device_uuid);
@@ -1296,6 +1301,10 @@ static int update_super1(struct supertype *st, struct mdinfo *info,
sb->raid_disks = __cpu_to_le32(info->array.raid_disks);
sb->dev_roles[info->disk.number] =
__cpu_to_le16(info->disk.raid_disk);
+ if (sb->raid_disks+1 >= __le32_to_cpu(sb->max_dev)) {
sb->raid_disks is an le32 number, not a cpu number. So adding 1 to
it is clearly wrong.
Really sorry for the careless...I mean info->array.raid_disks here.
Why do you think you need a change here at all?
The first part of this patch is dealing with the newly added disk
when the disk number is greater than sb->max_dev.
While updating the superblock on the original disks of the linear
array, shouldn't I also check if the disk numbers is greater
than sb->max_dev?
254 info.array.raid_disks = nd+1;
255 info.array.nr_disks = nd+1;
256 info.array.active_disks = nd+1;
257 info.array.working_disks = nd+1;
258
259 st->ss->update_super(st, &info, "linear-grow-update", dv,
260 0, 0, NULL);
261
262 if (st->ss->store_super(st, fd2)) {
263 pr_err("Cannot store new superblock on %s\n", dv);
264 close(fd2);
265 return 1;
266 }
Thanks,
Lidong
NeilBrown
+ sb->dev_roles[sb->raid_disks] = __cpu_to_le16(MD_DISK_ROLE_SPARE);
+ sb->max_dev = __cpu_to_le32(sb->raid_disks+1);
+ }
} else if (strcmp(update, "resync") == 0) {
/* make sure resync happens */
sb->resync_offset = 0ULL;
--
2.12.0
--
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
