Re: [PATCH 3/9] imsm:FIX: one spare can be added to raid0 only

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:04:11 +0100 Adam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@intel.com> wrote:

> This is part of original commit "Add spares to raid0 in mdadm"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Wojcik <krzysztof.wojcik@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@intel.com>
> ---
> 
>  super-intel.c |    8 ++++++++
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
> index 90bff47..ef51000 100644
> --- a/super-intel.c
> +++ b/super-intel.c
> @@ -3442,6 +3442,8 @@ static int add_to_super_imsm_volume(struct supertype *st, mdu_disk_info_t *dk,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int write_super_imsm(struct supertype *st, int doclose);
> +
>  static int add_to_super_imsm(struct supertype *st, mdu_disk_info_t *dk,
>  			      int fd, char *devname)
>  {
> @@ -3506,6 +3508,12 @@ static int add_to_super_imsm(struct supertype *st, mdu_disk_info_t *dk,
>  		super->disks = dd;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!mdmon_running(st->container_dev)) {
> +		dprintf("imsm: mdmon is not active- write metadata by mdadm\n");
> +		super->updates_pending++;
> +		write_super_imsm(st, 0);
> +	}
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  


No.
I don't want "mdmon_running" tests in super-intel.c

What is the problem you are trying to fix (the comment in the patch should
*always* answer that question for me - I shouldn't have to ask).

NeilBrown