Separate the load_container call from the load_super call,
and use different validity tests as appropriate.
Add some general code tidying and a bit of indent change to make
structure a little clearer.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
This is somewhat inconsistent with the last member of a
container getting special handling.
Just simplify it so the code seems to make sense and important
is easy to follow.
Signed-of-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Now that the next_member loop is much smaller it is easy to
just use 'content' rather than stashing it in 'tmpdev->content'.
So we can remove the 'content' field from 'struct mddev_dev'.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
We have a 'goto next_member' loop which is rather spread-out and
confusing.
Recent refactoring make it possible to contract that loop
significantly.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
In assemble, we see (inside a 'for' loop):
if (condition) {
lots of stuff
} else
something
small thing
if (same condition) {
lots more stuff
break;
}
where 'condition' cannot be changed in the middle.
So simplify this to
if (condition) {
lots of stuff
small thing
lots more stuff
break;
}
something
small thing
which duplicates the small thing, but provides much
conceptual simplicity.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Remove the _t pointer typedef and remove the _s suffix for the
structure,
These things do not help readability.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If we get an early error (e.g. not a block device) we need to
not continue through and check e.g. uuid.
Also make sure we set used=2 whenever we find an error, and don't
bother with ->free_super as 'goto loop' does that.
Now that we abort earlier, we can remove lots of tests on
tst && tst->sb
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
We more clearly separate out -I on a container, and use
load_container in that case and load_super only for true members.
This removes another use of loaded_container.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
This handles the 'container' part of 'load_super', so we can
soon make them completely separate - it is just confusing to
overload these two.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
It makes more sense to test for container_dev than for subarray
for several places in Create where it then uses container_dev.
This allows us to subsequently remove subarray.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Now that we can ask container_content for a specific subarray,
we don't need to pass the subarray name to load_super, and have it
secretly modify the returned state.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
This allows the info for a single array to be extracted,
so we don't have to write it into st->subarray.
For consistency, implement container_content for super0 and super1,
to just return the mdinfo for the single array.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
We don't need ->container_dev here, and we will soon be passing
subarray as an explicit arg to load_super.
So simplify extraction of subarray and move the strcpy close to
->load_super.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Rather than hiding this in the 'st', return it explicitly.
In the one case we still need it, copy it into st where needed.
This will disappear in a future patch.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Rather than hiding this arg in the 'st' structure, pass it explicitly.
This is a first step to getting rid of 'subarray' from 'supertype'.
The strcpy in open_subarray should have better error checking, but it
will disappear soon so there is little point.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de.
We were setting ->container_member twice in ddf get_info.
Once to currentconf->vcnum,
once to atoi(st->subarray).
Both should be the same.
For consistency with super-intel, use the first.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If the first device found has a much smaller event count than a
subsequent device, that device will not be entered in the 'avail'
array properly.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If a device - typically in a mirrored set - is assembled independently
of the other devices, and then attempted to be brought back into the
set it could contain inconsistent data. It should not be included.
So detect this situation by ensuring that the 'most recent' device is
believed to be active by every other device. If a device is wayward,
it will only consider fellow wayward devices to be active and will
think all others are failed or missing.
This patch only fixes --assemble, not --incremental
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To accurately detect when an array has been split and is now being
recombined, we need to track which other devices each thinks is
working.
We should never include a device in an array if it thinks that the
primary device has failed.
This patch just allows get_info_super to return a list of devices
and whether they are thought to be working or not.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Detail: report reshape and check as well as resync and recovery
Wait: if the resync is pending or delayed, wait for that too.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If an --add is requested and a re-add looks promising but fails or
cannot possibly succeed, then don't try the add. This avoids
inadvertently turning devices into spares when an array is failed but
the devices seem to actually work.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
pol_sort could go into an infinite loop.
The proof of this patch is left as a exercise for the reader :-)
Reported-by: "Hawrylewicz Czarnowski, Przemyslaw" <przemyslaw.hawrylewicz.czarnowski@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If an --update is requested by the relevant metadata doesn't
understand it, print a useful message rather than silently ignoring
the issue.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If a device is bare and policy suggests that it can be used as a spare
for virtual 'partitions' array, find an appropriate partition table
and write it to the device.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Allow disk-policy to be computed given the path and
disk type explicitly. This can be used when hunting through
/dev/disk/by-path for something interesting.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Adding a spare to a group of partitioned devices is quite different
from adding one to an array. So detect which option is worth trying
based on policy and then try one or the other - or possibly both - as
appropriate.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To support incorpating a new bare device into a collection of arrays -
one partition each - mdadm needs a modest understanding of partition
tables.
The main needs to be able to recognise a partition table on one device
and copy it onto another.
This will be done using pseudo metadata types 'mbr' and 'gpt'.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If a device is less than 1K, avoid even trying to seek to 1K before
the end.
The seek will fail anyway so this is a fairly cosmetic fix.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
NeilBrown