From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: More Hot Unplug/Plug work Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:13:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4BD8A50F.1030904@intel.com> References: <4BD714A3.9020801@redhat.com> <905EDD02F158D948B186911EB64DB3D11C954788@irsmsx503.ger.corp.intel.com> <4BD874CB.5040803@redhat.com> <905EDD02F158D948B186911EB64DB3D11C95485F@irsmsx503.ger.corp.intel.com> <4BD8A336.7080309@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BD8A336.7080309@redhat.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: "Labun, Marcin" , Neil Brown , Linux RAID Mailing List , "Ciechanowski, Ed" , "Hawrylewicz Czarnowski, Przemyslaw" List-Id: linux-raid.ids Doug Ledford wrote: > On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Labun, Marcin wrote: >> Should an array be split (not assembled) if a domain paths are dividing array into two separate DOMAIN? > > I don't think so. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to > render a machine unbootable if you had a type in a domain path. I think > I would prefer to allow established arrays to assemble regardless of > domain path entries. This is what I was calling the 'enforce=' policy in previous mails. Whether to block, warn, or ignore arrays that span a domain. I can see someone wanting to have something like enforce=platform to make sure we Linux tries to assemble an array that the option-rom can't put together. >>> I'm happy to rework the code to support it if there's a valid use >>> case, but so far my design goal has been to have a path only appear in >>> one domain, and to then perform the appropriate action based upon that >>> domain. >> What is then the purpose of metadata keyword? > > Mainly as a hint that a given domain uses a specific type of metadata. Yeah, to protect against cases where a stale disk is plugged into an unexpected port. -- Dan