From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: include faulty drive in disk count Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:34 -0500 Message-ID: <9348bd61-145e-cb3e-33a0-ddaa231d5cc8@fb.com> References: <1510069796-17515-1-git-send-email-mariusz.tkaczyk@intel.com> <20171113080919.GA8293@proton.igk.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171113080919.GA8293@proton.igk.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Majchrzak Cc: Mariusz Tkaczyk , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 11/13/2017 03:09 AM, Tomasz Majchrzak wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 03:46:08PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> On 11/07/2017 10:49 AM, Mariusz Tkaczyk wrote: >>> When the disk fails, it goes into faulty state first and it is removed >>> from the array in a while. It gives mdadm monitor a chance to see the disk >>> has failed and notify an event (e.g. FailSpare). It doesn't work when >>> sysfs is used to get a number of disks in the array as it skips faulty >>> disk. ioctl implementation doesn't differentiate between active and >>> faulty disk. Do the same for sysfs then. It should not matter that number >>> of disks reported is greater than list of disk structures returned by the >>> call because the same approach already takes place for offline disks. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Tkaczyk >>> --- >>> sysfs.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Applied! >> >> Thanks, >> Jes > > Hi Jes, > > Have you applied this patch? I don't see it on the repository. I see you > applied "imsm: More precise message when spanned raid is created" but you > haven't confirmed it by email. Hi Tomek, It was there, but I had forgotten to push it. It should be in the public repo now. Cheers, Jes