On 07/05/2017 10:40 AM, Xiao Ni wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guoqing Jiang" <gqjiang@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Xiao Ni" <xni@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ncroxon@xxxxxxxxxx, "jes sorensen" <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 9:56:35 AM
Subject: Re: [MDADM PATCH 1/1] Array size is wrong when run mdadm -E
On 07/04/2017 05:55 PM, Xiao Ni wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guoqing Jiang" <gqjiang@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Xiao Ni" <xni@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ncroxon@xxxxxxxxxx, "jes sorensen" <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 5:03:30 PM
Subject: Re: [MDADM PATCH 1/1] Array size is wrong when run mdadm -E
On 07/04/2017 02:50 PM, Xiao Ni wrote:
The size of array shows wrongly. It shifs wrong number.
Signed-off-by: Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
super1.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/super1.c b/super1.c
index 86ec850..f3b864d 100644
--- a/super1.c
+++ b/super1.c
@@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ static void examine_super1(struct supertype *st, char
*homehost)
}
if (ddsks) {
long long asize = __le64_to_cpu(sb->size);
- asize = (asize << 9) * ddsks / ddsks_denom;
+ asize = (asize << 10) * ddsks / ddsks_denom;
printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n",
asize >> 10, human_size(asize));
}
IIRC, sb->size represents the num of sectors, so the shift should be 9.
Yes, it should be 9. It should pass bytes to human_size. Thanks for this.
It was introduced in d4633e06dfc01723911627fcb104af2ffb6f6a95. So there is
the same problem in super0. Is it ok:
diff --git a/super0.c b/super0.c
index 756cab5..4b4680c 100644
--- a/super0.c
+++ b/super0.c
@@ -131,9 +131,9 @@ static void examine_super0(struct supertype *st, char
*homehost)
}
if (ddsks) {
long long asize = sb->size;
- asize = (asize << 10) * ddsks / ddsks_denom;
+ asize = (asize << 9) * ddsks / ddsks_denom;
printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n",
- asize >> 10, human_size(asize));
+ asize >> 9, human_size(asize));
}
No, for 0.9 metadata, sb->size means KB not sector.
Thanks for this.
}
printf(" Raid Devices : %d\n", sb->raid_disks);
diff --git a/super1.c b/super1.c
index 86ec850..2bb1454 100644
--- a/super1.c
+++ b/super1.c
@@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static void examine_super1(struct supertype *st, char
*homehost)
long long asize = __le64_to_cpu(sb->size);
asize = (asize << 9) * ddsks / ddsks_denom;
printf(" Array Size : %llu%s\n",
- asize >> 10, human_size(asize));
+ asize >> 9, human_size(asize));
}
if (sb->size != sb->data_size)
printf(" Used Dev Size : %llu%s\n",
It is better that you can provide the output of "mdadm -E DISK" etc to prove
current code is wrong, at least I can see correct output from my side.
[root@dell-per210-01 mdadm]# mdadm -E /dev/loop0
/dev/loop0:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 1.2
Feature Map : 0x0
Array UUID : 34f18365:ebf46416:ae1f365d:71cc579c
Name : 0
Creation Time : Tue Jul 4 02:09:03 2017
Raid Level : raid5
Raid Devices : 3
Avail Dev Size : 8261632 (3.94 GiB 4.23 GB)
Array Size : 6291456 (6.00 GiB 6.44 GB)
Used Dev Size : 6291456 (3.00 GiB 3.22 GB)
Ah, I know it wants to show Array Size in KB. It's a raid5 with 3 loop devices.
I thought they are all sectors subconsciously. But it's better to show sizes with
the same unit. Right?
Perhaps that is why the human_size is used here.
Thanks,
Guoqing
--
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
