Re: [PATCH 0/1] Make failure message on re-add more explcit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi Doug.

Thanks for your long reply.

I would like to propose the following patch.

It addresses the issues that I am concerned about, and I don't think it
interferes with the usage patterns that you are concerned about.

Does it seems reasonable to you?

My apologies for the frustration this has cause you and your customers.

NeilBrown

commit 0a999759b54f94fd63ac0ee298a549acef6f7d6f
Author: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Date:   Wed Apr 18 14:19:49 2012 +1000

    Relax restrictions on when --add is permitted.
    
    The restriction that --add was not allowed on a device which
    looked like a recent member of an array was overly harsh.
    
    The real requirement was to avoid using --add when the array had
    failed, and the device being added might contain necessary
    information which can only be incorporated by stopping and
    re-assembling with --force.
    
    So change the test to reflect the need.
    
    Reported-by: Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>

diff --git a/Manage.c b/Manage.c
index 3767f01..95aa270 100644
--- a/Manage.c
+++ b/Manage.c
@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ int Manage_subdevs(char *devname, int fd,
 		char *dnprintable = dv->devname;
 		char *add_dev = dv->devname;
 		int err;
-		int re_add_failed = 0;
+		int array_failed;
 
 		next = dv->next;
 		jnext = 0;
@@ -851,9 +851,8 @@ int Manage_subdevs(char *devname, int fd,
 								continue;
 							goto abort;
 						}
-					skip_re_add:
-						re_add_failed = 1;
 					}
+				skip_re_add:
 					st->ss->free_super(st);
 				}
 				if (add_dev != dv->devname) {
@@ -875,12 +874,30 @@ int Manage_subdevs(char *devname, int fd,
 						dv->devname, devname);
 					goto abort;
 				}
-				if (re_add_failed) {
-					fprintf(stderr, Name ": %s reports being an active member for %s, but a --re-add fails.\n",
-						dv->devname, devname);
-					fprintf(stderr, Name ": not performing --add as that would convert %s in to a spare.\n",
-						dv->devname);
-					fprintf(stderr, Name ": To make this a spare, use \"mdadm --zero-superblock %s\" first.\n",	
+				if (array.active_disks < array.raid_disks) {
+					char *avail = calloc(array.raid_disks, 1);
+					int d;
+					int found = 0;
+
+					for (d = 0; d < MAX_DISKS && found < array.active_disks; d++) {
+						disc.number = d;
+						if (ioctl(fd, GET_DISK_INFO, &disc))
+							continue;
+						if (disc.major == 0 && disc.minor == 0)
+							continue;
+						if (!(disc.state & (1<<MD_DISK_SYNC)))
+							continue;
+						avail[disc.raid_disk] = 1;
+						found++;
+					}
+					array_failed = !enough(array.level, array.raid_disks, 
+							       array.layout, 1, avail);
+				} else
+					array_failed = 0;
+				if (array_failed) {
+					fprintf(stderr, Name ": %s has failed so using --add cannot work and might destroy\n",
+						devname);
+					fprintf(stderr, Name ": data on %s.  You should stop the array and re-assemble it.\n",
 						dv->devname);
 					if (tfd >= 0)
 						close(tfd);

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Managing RAID on Linux]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device-Mapper]     [Kernel]     [Linux Books]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [AMD 64]     [Linux Networking]

Add to Google Powered by Linux