From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: mdadm: Patch to restrict --size when shrinking unless forced Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:58:14 -0400 Message-ID: <52f93e96-ae12-4131-b6db-ac33877cfbda@turmel.org> References: <22997.8664.67459.119616@quad.stoffel.home> <87a81637lq.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <23002.37193.492253.120639@quad.stoffel.home> <87shetz207.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <23002.53075.413063.6948@quad.stoffel.home> <87h8v9yn91.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <871smaybig.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <871smaybig.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown , John Stoffel Cc: Eli Ben-Shoshan , Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 10/10/2017 04:48 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09 2017, Phil Turmel wrote: >> Might it be reasonable to reject "--grow" operations that reduce the >> final array size, and introduce the complementary "--reduce" operation >> that rejects array size increases? > > While there is a lot to like about this approach, one problem is that > some "grow" operations do not change the size. They might, e.g., just change > the chunksize. I tried to word my proposal to address that -- either keyword could accept operations that didn't change the size. > I guess you could have --grow --reduce --reshape. > > I wouldn't object to such a change. Jes has weighed in as opposed. Sigh. Phil