>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Turmel <philip@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: Phil> 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. Phil> A certain amount of the trouble with all of this is the english meaning Phil> of "grow" doesn't really match what mdadm allows. Phil> Might it be reasonable to reject "--grow" operations that reduce the Phil> final array size, and introduce the complementary "--reduce" operation Phil> that rejects array size increases? I like this idea! And it wouldn't be hard to implement in mdadm. Phil> Both operations would share the current code, just apply a different Phil> sanity check before proceeding. Phil> mdadm would then at least not violate the rule of least surprise. -- 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
