From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40330 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750928AbcDEDCt (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:02:49 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1anHGR-0007Df-Bm for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 05:02:47 +0200 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 05:02:47 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 05:02:47 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13 v3] Introduce device state 'failed', Hot spare and Auto replace Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 03:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1459560651-14809-1-git-send-email-anand.jain@oracle.com> <20160404020043.47ad35bf@jupiter.sol.kaishome.de> <20160404221513.7fd31f8f@jupiter.sol.kaishome.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kai Krakow posted on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 22:15:13 +0200 as excerpted: > Your argument would be less important if it did copy-back, tho... ;-) FWIW, I completely misunderstood your description of copy-back in my original reply, and didn't realize what you meant (and thus my mistaken understanding) until I read some of the other replies today. What I /thought/ you meant was some totally nonsense/WTF idea of keeping the newly substituted hot-spare in place, and taking the newly vacated "defective" device and putting it back in the the hot-spare list. That rightly seemed stupid to me (it's a device just replaced as defective, now you're putting it back as a hot-spare? WTF?), but that's how I read what you were asking for and saying that other solutions did, so... Of course today when I read the other replies and realized what you were /actually/ describing, returning the hot-spare to hot-spare status after physically replacing the actually failed drive with a new one and logically replacing the hot-spare with it in the filesystem, thereby making the hot-spare a spare once again, my reaction was "DUH!! NOW it makes sense!" But I was just going to let it go and go hide my original misunderstanding in a hole somewhere. But now you replied to my reply, so I figured I would reply back, explaining what on earth I was thinking when I wrote it, and why it must have seemed rather out of left field and didn't make much sense -- because what I was thinking you were suggesting /didn't/ make sense, but of course that's because I totally misunderstood what you were suggesting. So now my very-much-former misunderstanding is out of the hole and posted for everyone to see and have a good laugh at, and I'm much the wiser on what copy-back actually entails. =:^) Tho it seems I was correct in the one aspect, currently ENotImplemented, even if my idea of what you were asking to be implemented was totally and completely off-the-wall wrong. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman