On Apr 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:32:00 -0500 Brassow Jonathan <jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Brassow Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 5-of-5: changing the check to 'saved_raid_disk >= 0' would be fine, but I think I should initialize 'saved_raid_disk' to -1 in dm-raid.c then normally. Right now, an nominal initial value is not set - meaning it is '0'. (When a device comes back from a failure, 'saved_raid_disk' is assigned its old position.)
>>
>> ... that's not quite right. I do call 'md_rdev_init' which sets 'saved_raid_disk' to -1. Then, if the device has returned after a disappearance, I set 'saved_raid_disk' to it's old position. Therefore, 'saved_raid_disk >= 0' would be fine and wouldn't require me to set -1 in dm-raid.c.
>>
>> brassow
>>
>
> Excellent. I've taken the liberty of making that change in the patch you
> sent me and converted your RFC-by: to Signed-off-by:
>
> Result can be viewed at or near the top of
>
> http://neil.brown.name/git?p=md;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-next
>
> Please confirm that is OK to submit (eventually for 3.5).
Perfect, thank-you.
brassow--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[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]