On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:56 PM Mariusz Tkaczyk
<mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Xiao,
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:40:50 +0800
> Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Now for a raid0, it can't remove one member disk from raid0. It
> > returns EBUSY and the raid0 still can work well. It makes sense.
> > Because all member disks are busy, the admin can't remove the member
> > disk and mdadm gives a proper error.
>
> EBUSY means that drive is busy but it is not. Just drive cannot be
> safety removed. As I wrote in patch 2:
>
> If "faulty" was not set then -EBUSY was returned to
> userspace. It causes that mdadm expects -EBUSY if the array
> becomes failed. There are some reasons to not consider this mechanism
> as correct:
> - drive can't be failed for different reasons.
> - there are path where -EBUSY is not reported and drive removal leads
> to failed array, without notification for userspace.
> - in the array failure case -EBUSY seems to be wrong status. Array is
> not busy, but removal process cannot proceed safe.
>
> For compatibility reasons i cannot remove EBUSY. I left more detailed
> explanation in patch 2.
>
> > With this patch, it changes the situation. In raid0_error, it sets
> > MD_BROKEN. In fact, it isn't broken. So is it really good to set
> > MD_BROKEN here? In patch 62f7b1989c0 ("md raid0/linear: Mark array as
> > 'broken'...), MD_BROKEN is introduced
> > when the member disk disappears and the disk is really broken. For
> > raid0/linear, the raid device can't work anymore.
>
> It is broken, any md_error() call should end with appropriate action:
> - drive removal (if possible)
> - failing array (if cannot degrade array)
>
> We cannot trust drive if md_error() was called, so writes will be
> blocked. IMO it is reasonable- to not engage level stack, because one
> or more members cannot be trusted (even if it is still accessible). Just
> allow to read old data (if still possible).
>
Thanks for the explanation. It's ok for me. Just want to have the same
understanding. Now raid0 works
in the way that it will fail when calling md_error.
Regards
Xiao
