mdadm: [PATCH] Don't consider disks with a valid recovery offset as candidates for bumping up event count

mdadm: [PATCH] Don't consider disks with a valid recovery offset as candidates for bumping up event count

[Alexander Lyakas]

Hi Neil,
do you think the below patch sounds reasonable?

Thanks,
Alex.


From 98adc21bba9cf5d77214d665f2218fd7de2623b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Lyakas <alex@zadarastorage.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:04:24 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Don't consider disks with a valid recovery offset as
 candidates for bumping up event count.

When we are looking for a candidate disk to bump up the event count,
we consider only disks that have recovery_start==MaxSector.
However, after we find one such disk, we agree to accept more disks
having same event count, regardless of their recovery_start.
Be consistent and don't accept disks with a valid recovery_start at all.

diff --git a/Assemble.c b/Assemble.c
index 080993d..227d66f 100644
--- a/Assemble.c
+++ b/Assemble.c
@@ -1069,6 +1069,7 @@ int Assemble(struct supertype *st, char *mddev,
                        int j = best[i];
                        if (j >= 0 &&
                            !devices[j].uptodate &&
+                           devices[j].i.recovery_start == MaxSector &&
                            devices[j].i.events == current_events) {
                                chosen_drive = j;
                                goto add_another;

Re: mdadm: [PATCH] Don't consider disks with a valid recovery offset as candidates for bumping up event count

[NeilBrown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1660 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:10:43 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Neil,
> do you think the below patch sounds reasonable?

Yes, looks good.  Applied.

Thanks,
NeilBrown



> 
> Thanks,
> Alex.
> 
> 
> >From 98adc21bba9cf5d77214d665f2218fd7de2623b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Lyakas <alex@zadarastorage.com>
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:04:24 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] Don't consider disks with a valid recovery offset as
>  candidates for bumping up event count.
> 
> When we are looking for a candidate disk to bump up the event count,
> we consider only disks that have recovery_start==MaxSector.
> However, after we find one such disk, we agree to accept more disks
> having same event count, regardless of their recovery_start.
> Be consistent and don't accept disks with a valid recovery_start at all.
> 
> diff --git a/Assemble.c b/Assemble.c
> index 080993d..227d66f 100644
> --- a/Assemble.c
> +++ b/Assemble.c
> @@ -1069,6 +1069,7 @@ int Assemble(struct supertype *st, char *mddev,
>                         int j = best[i];
>                         if (j >= 0 &&
>                             !devices[j].uptodate &&
> +                           devices[j].i.recovery_start == MaxSector &&
>                             devices[j].i.events == current_events) {
>                                 chosen_drive = j;
>                                 goto add_another;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]