From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: is "replaceable" in 3.2 considered stable Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:53:24 +1100 Message-ID: <20121105215324.434e09dc@notabene.brown> References: <20121105162227.7bc5c103@notabene.brown> <20121105194210.7f053192@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/IfDl3tExf1gEAj7B5ZtA8ZF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/IfDl3tExf1gEAj7B5ZtA8ZF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:46:47 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, NeilBrown wrote: >=20 > > You want > > echo want_replacement > ..../state > > > > I changed that from replaceable at some point, so I guess you are looki= ng at > > old code :-( >=20 > I was looking at the LWN article... >=20 > Still no go though: >=20 > root:~# echo want_replacement > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-sdh/state > -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument > root:~# cat /sys/block/md0/md/dev-sdh/state > in_sync > root:~# cat /proc/mdstat > Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [rai= d1] [raid10] > md0 : active raid6 sdi[10](S) sdg[11] sdj[15] sdh[14] sdk[13] sde[12] sdd= [9] sdb[6] sdf[7] sdc[2] > 13674601024 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [9/9]= [UUUUUUUUU] > bitmap: 0/15 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk >=20 > unused devices: >=20 The code actually appears in 3.3, not 3.2. Sorry. The email in the lwn.net article does say: > I hope to submit this together with support for RAID10 (and maybe some > minimal support for RAID1) for Linux-3.3.=20 It also says: > The following series - on top of my for-linus branch which should appear = in > 3.2-rc1 eventually - implements hot-replace for RAID4/5/6. which is probably what made you think it was in 3.2. However is was the "for-linus branch; that would appear in 3.2-rc1, not the series of patches :-( So: you need 3.3 or later. NeilBrown --Sig_/IfDl3tExf1gEAj7B5ZtA8ZF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUJeapDnsnt1WYoG5AQLDxhAAghU5yRDJHRt3cWtf9PwQb0P8ZpFARmYe +NZPgcyiFu4mDEbQousg4osrIxBk6eDU60OlZnu3/+3N1GisaxhyDXFbDkXLDP0J GBUtnFoYz9cYZ7xIn20g7hiVb+wxNOEKrL/uNjMjxDzKjzFQcjcUq9wM7/+5EGHF qjGKL9yfzUByzID6Q3TBor9yItoqjYMkvWxqAKlIxePY7jV/FJkwS6F+zsyPDI42 drc7ciMWUfE/JsnLM4WF3yCtnc0nTGSGXXZreP3f9SmL/gZFOB7K2RyqcCHYUh+x p/iCvwjQFiR5FHW2h1qSi+5C0PGBYNvWZ5DXWLyKu53zbclleOj8s665OetPT95c 7aeAvvh7+EPxHj9yinX4wdY/dVZprv3gyP9qRmnqK2svB0g/dBM7iSLaS8/Wod+h iw5A+KxoDgnXgVyh6nck1ZfyuMx2HTotn4IgDbG3VkPz9hA03F+RmsUvTcI74Y+t k8ft6zFZi4kaV1owSRjx53B4pjJpz30WOdPGf0884GKb57nphz0tMKuTRcMPCwNZ 48COqJMvSL9RfEiehVl3qNpdc2JYCKIffJkpIZKI7qnkOk8ZyFKcjVqSLtnDeW+N lFZDaRvO7Yo6gvV/pUmyCJA+51SO4qrySYWLLstPUyD5/8tql0oQgIMjwkInQnhV AG8/yy1215s= =TBuV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/IfDl3tExf1gEAj7B5ZtA8ZF--