On 10/09/2017 12:10 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > If there is some action that mdadm can currently be told to perform, and > when it tries to perform that action it corrupts the array, then > it is certainly appropriate to teach mdadm not to perform that action. > It shouldn't even perform that action with --force. I agree that > changing mdadm like this is complementary to changing the kernel. Both > are useful. A certain amount of the trouble with all of this is the english meaning of "grow" doesn't really match what mdadm allows. Might it be reasonable to reject "--grow" operations that reduce the final array size, and introduce the complementary "--reduce" operation that rejects array size increases? Both operations would share the current code, just apply a different sanity check before proceeding. mdadm would then at least not violate the rule of least surprise. Phil -- 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
