From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gil Subject: Re: Bug report: mdadm -E oddity Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:00:32 -0700 Message-ID: <428E4FF0.9010504@fooplanet.com> References: <1115999051.3974.14.camel@compaq-rhel4.xsintricity.com> <1116004267.3974.35.camel@compaq-rhel4.xsintricity.com> <17029.12773.197506.463977@cse.unsw.edu.au> <1116077316.13780.52.camel@compaq-rhel4.xsintricity.com> <17037.35615.456231.737766@cse.unsw.edu.au> <1116592212.23785.75.camel@compaq-rhel4.xsintricity.com> <428E0A92.3060108@steeleye.com> <1116611115.23785.89.camel@compaq-rhel4.xsintricity.com> <428E421B.3050902@panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <428E421B.3050902@panix.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: berk walker Cc: "Peter T. Breuer" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids berk walker wrote: > Peter - > for us old folks, please expand "idempotent" in usage to reflect the > relationships to which you refer. In common usage, an operation is idempotent when it is provably safely repeatable. Another way to say it is that you can repeat an idempotent operation without side effects. In the context of this conversation, Peter is asking that Doug prove that the write can be repeated on restart without corrupting the state of the RAID array. --Gil