On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Xiao Ni wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 8:08 AM NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > mdopen() will use create_named_array() to ask the kernel to create the > > > given md array, but only if it is given a number or name. > > > If it is NOT given a name and is required to choose one itself using > > > find_free_devnm() it does NOT use create_named_array(). > > > > > > On kernels with CONFIG_BLOCK_LEGACY_AUTOLOAD not set, this can result in > > > failure to assemble an array. This can particularly seen when the > > > "name" of the array begins with a host name different to the name of the > > > host running the command. > > > > > > So add the missing call to create_named_array(). > > > > > > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217074 > > > > Hi Neil > > > > I have two questions, hope you can help to understand the function > > create_mddev better. > > > > Frist, from the comment7 of the bug you mentioned: > > > > There are two different sorts names. Note that you almost > > acknowledged this by writing "name for my md device node" while the > > documentation only talks about names for "md devices", not for "md > > device nodes". > > > > There are > > 1/ there are names in /dev or /dev/md/ (device nodes) > > 2/ there are names that appear in /proc/mdstat and in /sys/block/ (devices) > > > > Thanks for the clarification. But it looks like it doesn't work like > > what you said. > > For example: > > mdadm -CR /dev/md/root -l0 -n2 /dev/sda /dev/sdc --name=test > > cat /proc/mdstat > > Personalities : [raid0] > > md127 : active raid0 sdc[1] sda[0] > > 3906764800 blocks super 1.2 512k chunks > > cd /sys/block/md127/md/ > > > > In /proc/mdstat and /sys/block, they all use md127 rather than the name(root) > > Try again with "CREATE names=yes" in /etc/mdadm.conf. > > mdadm generally tries to keep: > - the names in /dev/ > - the names in /dev/md/ > - the names in /proc/mdstat > - the names stored in the metadata > > in sync. It can only do this when: > - you enabled "names=yes" > - you don't confuse it by specifying a device name (/dev/md/root) that > is different from the metadata names "test". > > If you don't have "names=yes" then the name in /proc/mdstat and the name > in /dev/md* will be numeric. The name in /dev/md/ and the name in the > metadata can be different and will usually be the same. > > If you explicitly give a different name with --name= than the device > name then obviously they will be different. If you then stop the array > and restart with "mdadm -As" or "mdadm -I /dev/sda; mdadm -I /dev/sdb" > then mdadm will create a name in /dev/md/ that matches the name in the > metadata. Hi Neil My last email uses non plain text mode. So many people can't see it. I send this again with plain text mode. Thanks for your explanation. It looks like I understand it. In the function create_mddev, it tries to extract the number and name from dev(device node name) or name(metadata name). If it doesn't use --name when creating a raid device, it gets the number and name from dev. 1. If it can get a number, we use the mdNN as the raid name. So the device node name and raid name are the same(.e.g md0). 2. If it can't get a number and doesn't set 'Create names=yes', it automatically chooses a number. In this case the device node name and the raid name are different. For example: mdadm -CR /dev/md/root -l0 -n2 /dev/sda /dev/sdc The device node name is md127, the raid name is root. Because it doesn't specify --name, so the metadata name is root too. mdadm -CR /dev/md/root -l0 -n2 /dev/sda /dev/sdc --name=test The device node name is md127, the raid name is root, the metadata name is test. When assembling raid device, it'll use md127 as the device node name too. But the raid name will change to md_test. So it's not a good command to create the raid device. If you want to specify the raid name in /dev/md/root, it's better not to use --name. 3. If it can't get a number and sets 'Create names=yes' in mdadm.conf, it can use the raid name as the device node name. For example: mdadm -CR /dev/md/root -l0 -n2 /dev/sda /dev/sdc The device node name is root, the raid name is root and the metadata name is root too. > > > > > Before this patch, it creates a symbol link with the name root rather than test > > ll /dev/md/root > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 8 Mar 21 22:35 /dev/md/root -> ../md127 > > That is what you asked it to do. > > > > > So "test" which is specified by --name looks like it has little usage. > > > > It is stored in the metadata. You can see it in --examine output. If > you reassemble the array without specifying a device name, it will use > the name "test". So we can call it metadata name :) > > > > > By the way, after this patch, the symbol link /dev/md/root can't be > > created anymore. > > Is it a regression problem? > > I cannot reproduce any problem like that. Please provide a sequence of > steps so that I can try to duplicate it. In the next email, Mariusz has given the reproduction steps. And it's another patch that causes the regression. > > > > > Second, are there possibilities that the arguments "dev" and "name" of > > function create_mddev > > are null at the same time? > > No. For Build or Create, dev is never NULL. For Assemble and > Incremental, name is never NULL. > > > > After some tests, I found dev can't be null when creating a raid > > device. It can be checked before > > calling create_mddev. And we must get a name after creating a raid > > device. So when assembling > > a raid device, the name must not be null. So the dev and name can't be > > null at the same time, right? > > Correct. Thanks for the confirmation. Now there is a comment like this: "If both name and dev are NULL, we choose a name 'mdXX' or 'mdpXX'". I'll try to write some patches to optimize the function mddev_create and those comments. Best Regards Xiao
