From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike Snitzer" Subject: Re: mdadm 2.6.x regression, fails creation of raid1 w/ v1.0 sb and internal bitmap Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:18:41 -0400 Message-ID: <170fa0d20710191618s3e284d07q738662987acfe452@mail.gmail.com> References: <170fa0d20710170837g1b0cd549w3b7fe8e663a01b7e@mail.gmail.com> <18198.62670.605246.270516@notabene.brown> <170fa0d20710180510o1edff608p22953fa712e217f6@mail.gmail.com> <18200.6319.487833.714355@notabene.brown> <170fa0d20710182152i4763c347r704c9d939e0a4638@mail.gmail.com> <170fa0d20710182215v19756cabp30ddddeb7a7668a2@mail.gmail.com> <18200.17870.419986.530609@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18200.17870.419986.530609@notabene.brown> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 10/19/07, Neil Brown wrote: > On Friday October 19, snitzer@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm using a stock 2.6.19.7 that I then backported various MD fixes to > > from 2.6.20 -> 2.6.23... this kernel has worked great until I > > attempted v1.0 sb w/ bitmap=internal using mdadm 2.6.x. > > > > But would you like me to try a stock 2.6.22 or 2.6.23 kernel? > > Yes please. > I'm suspecting the code in write_sb_page where it tests if the bitmap > overlaps the data or metadata. The only way I can see you getting the > exact error that you do get it for that to fail. > That test was introduced in 2.6.22. Did you backport that? Any > chance it got mucked up a bit? I believe you're referring to commit f0d76d70bc77b9b11256a3a23e98e80878be1578. That change actually made it into 2.6.23 AFAIK; but yes I actually did backport that fix (which depended on ab6085c795a71b6a21afe7469d30a365338add7a). If I back-out f0d76d70bc77b9b11256a3a23e98e80878be1578 I can create a raid1 w/ v1.0 sb and an internal bitmap. But clearly that is just because I removed the negative checks that you introduced ;) For me this begs the question: what else would f0d76d70bc77b9b11256a3a23e98e80878be1578 depend on that I missed? I included 505fa2c4a2f125a70951926dfb22b9cf273994f1 and ab6085c795a71b6a21afe7469d30a365338add7a too. *shrug*... Mike