From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nix Subject: Re: FailSpare event? Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:01:06 +0000 Message-ID: <87y7o5lkjx.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> References: <17830.47341.560158.521091@notabene.brown> <200701121534.17618.earny@net4u.de> <873b6ere4s.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <873b6ere4s.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> (nix@esperi.org.uk's message of "13 Jan 2007 18:25:19 -0000") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: earny@net4u.de Cc: Neil Brown , Mike , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 13 Jan 2007, nix@esperi.org.uk uttered the following: > mdadm-2.6 bug, I fear. I haven't tracked it down yet but will look > shortly: I can't afford to not run mdadm --monitor... odd, that > code hasn't changed during 2.6 development. Whoo! Compile Monitor.c without optimization and the problem goes away. Hunting: maybe it's a compiler bug (anyone not using GCC 4.1.1 seeing this?), maybe mdadm is tripping undefined behaviour somewhere... -- `He accused the FSF of being "something of a hypocrit", which shows that he neither understands hypocrisy nor can spell.' --- jimmybgood