From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Spares Missing event in case of spare group?
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 08:53:01 +0200
Message-ID: <49FA9C4D.8040206@computer.org>
References: <49EB4B07.9050208@computer.org> <0ad180f4fb306d79e27eb9c822acdbaf.squirrel@neil.brown.name> <49ECC6CB.7050107@computer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <49ECC6CB.7050107@computer.org>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> NeilBrown wrote:
>> Yes.  Remove the "spares=1" from each line.
>> The sole effect of this text is to tell --monitor to expect a spare, and
>> to complain if no spare is found.
> 
> Many thanks. I hadn't picked that up from the manpage, so here is a 
> patch for your consideration:

Reasonable patch?

> diff --git a/mdadm.conf.5 b/mdadm.conf.5
> index 40295be..b67bec4 100644
> --- a/mdadm.conf.5
> +++ b/mdadm.conf.5
> @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ this is mainly for compatibility with the output of
>  .TP
>  .B spares=
>  The value is a number of spare devices to expect the array to have.
> +The sole use of this keyword and value is as follows:
>  .B mdadm \-\-monitor
>  will report an array if it is found to have fewer than this number of
>  spares when

Thanks, Jan