On Mon, Oct 09 2017, Phil Turmel wrote: > 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? While there is a lot to like about this approach, one problem is that some "grow" operations do not change the size. They might, e.g., just change the chunksize. I guess you could have --grow --reduce --reshape. I wouldn't object to such a change. Thanks, NeilBrown > > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
