On 9/1/20 3:00 AM, Nix wrote: > 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). > Makes sense to me. I'll try to rewrite the patch. Thanks for your share. Regards, Lidong
