From c98567bac15db4f4dfaf6130451538659899ba70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "mwilck@arcor.de" <mwilck@arcor.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 22:27:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] DDF: check_secondary: fix treatment of missing BVDs

Unused BVDs should just be skipped instead of bailing out.

Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
---
 super-ddf.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/super-ddf.c b/super-ddf.c
index 91feb87..c445df2 100644
--- a/super-ddf.c
+++ b/super-ddf.c
@@ -3222,10 +3222,8 @@ static int check_secondary(const struct vcl *vc)
 	__set_sec_seen(conf->sec_elmnt_seq);
 	for (i = 0; i < conf->sec_elmnt_count-1; i++) {
 		const struct vd_config *bvd = vc->other_bvds[i];
-		if (bvd == NULL) {
-			pr_err("BVD %d is missing\n", i+1);
-			return -1;
-		}
+		if (bvd == NULL)
+			continue;
 		if (bvd->srl != conf->srl) {
 			pr_err("Inconsistent secondary RAID level across BVDs\n");
 			return -1;