On 31 Aug 2020, Zhong Lidong told this: > On 8/29/20 12:38 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote: >> On 8/26/20 10:16 AM, Lidong Zhong wrote: >>> ... >>> So the misleading "raid0" is shown in this testcase. I think maybe >>> the "Raid Level" item shouldn't be displayed any more for the inactive >>> array. >> >> As a system administrator, I'd much rather see "unknown" (or something >> similar), rather than simply omitting the information. >> > Thanks for the suggestion. > Yeah, just removing the Raid Level info is not the best option. I also > considered to show it as "inactive Raid1" in such case. If it would be a raid1 when activated, it is still a raid1 when inactive: the data on disk doesn't suddenly become not a raid array simply because the kernel isn't able to access it right now. This is valuable information to expose to the sysadmin and should not be concealed (and *certainly* not described as a raid level it actually isn't). I think it should say as much (if the system knows at this stage, which if there is a device node, it presumably does).
