From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] raid6check fixes Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:04:58 +1000 Message-ID: <20130624170458.568dafcb@notabene.brown> References: <20130618090910.1161109.69430.stgit@fsdevel7.hpc.devnet.itwm.fhg.de> <20130619100803.03fde6d5@notabene.brown> <20130620161639.GA3033@lazy.lzy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/s/WLhPzcnCq=3kj6_XIPIDX"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130620161639.GA3033@lazy.lzy> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Piergiorgio Sartor Cc: Bernd Schubert , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/s/WLhPzcnCq=3kj6_XIPIDX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:16:39 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:08:03AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:09:10 +0200 Bernd Schubert > > wrote: > >=20 > > > Here are a few raid6check fixes. This series also includes a patch for > > > Makefile to allow to build with optimizations. I only fixed raid6check > > > to build with -O3, but I don't have time left today to fix mdadm=20 > > > (e.g. Grow.c:2237:41: error: =E2=80=98info2.data_offset=E2=80=99 may = be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=3Duninitialized]) > > >=20 > >=20 > > Thanks for mentioning that. I've fix that problem. > >=20 > > NeilBrown > >=20 > >=20 > > > I wanted to send the memleak-fixes much earlier, but then > > > I had been too busy. This patch is lightly tested, patches > > > from today are only build-tested. > >=20 >=20 > Hi Neil, >=20 > BTW, what's your plan of including "raid6check" > into a main release of "mdadm" package? >=20 > Do you have "deadline" in mind? What exactly do you mean by that? raid6check.c is already in the upstream git tree and was in mdadm-3.2.5. Do you mean when will it be included by distros? That is really up to them. I could get "make install" to install it I guess. I haven't really thought about what would be required for that. I'll add it to my list of things to think about. NeilBrown >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > bye, >=20 --Sig_/s/WLhPzcnCq=3kj6_XIPIDX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUcfvmjnsnt1WYoG5AQKjbRAAhLPhdDoa2a8XM0f6b0A+5+7iJuTDGISc JnMRbz12s7FFBCk8vVaTJOsAmBJD5i1wyAcvMFzdyMSwn2QfuuCs8XXKbV7M7PDw 3H0uy0W4XSykW/XQ8USszqomADp0HlJlrLYjKJ3PkaeFEuuy4EKNob7l8BhhGNgv Dl3leHWf0VqPzZ/pSFfSyB5RwNeWDIDJS0Ln5gurfv/V/cP6h6DyasAHYph75Z+V 3y0vhHDABCRWAubed1CX0scP3rZYp6BETLm4tOGy1iDHRVDRfUNnIiJdyIBZcds0 U1uryweMiCg6mJtdT9QqH63ndDgJ0xDSd/a0POmc9oNFSHdLpOstdxmzlRdY5032 5LpxRUtHL5acm17ajuBkq62L+vw7ETL5R2oqZVPhcdCUy/3+nlo6HpAx0e+YL9cy WJ47UWbuDyN0ehlD5Ayhh76K5Jo8qXqYCbIDF/EZbQI7NCdnf/PDWkrM+H1rgcGA +/p4Zg5swG69ckFKJ1q0GO90N29o94tlTy32qXkRb5PysvqZ7ps57QxOwr5viBOP 7BWX0fRYeR/oD/d2jbAU/tdmSJyE17kP44lzaO/2632tYHU76qMfsBRNKESxXbxP v88qNzp0jsGx4UoNG09a5DQyX8vTNdVoiIl183QxO5SLx8JhciUOfcTxlgZLHwOU aiVu/euVJm0= =h54t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/s/WLhPzcnCq=3kj6_XIPIDX--