On Wed, 06 Apr 2022, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> On 05/04/2022, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Apr 2022, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >>
> >> This is a question about original/alternate layout enforcement for RAID0
> >> arrays with members of different sizes introduced by commits
> >> c84a1372df929033cb1a0441fb57bd3932f39ac9 ("md/raid0: avoid RAID0 data
> >> corruption due to layout confusion.)" and
> >> 33f2c35a54dfd75ad0e7e86918dcbe4de799a56c ("md: add feature flag
> >> MD_FEATURE_RAID0_LAYOUT").
> >>
> >> The layout is irrelevant if all members have the same size so the array
> >> has only one zone. But isn't it also irrelevant if the array has two
> >> zones and the second zone has only one device, for example if the array
> >> has two members of different sizes ?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So wouldn't it make sense to allow assembly even when the layout is
> undefined, like what is done when the array has only one zone ?
>
Yes.
NeilBrown
P.S. maybe you would like to try making the code change yourself, and
posting the patch.
