From: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: md: bug in file raid5.c, line 1909 in 2.4.22-pre7
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:22:30 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16197.43158.905670.891510@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (raw)
In-Reply-To: message from Mike Fedyk on Tuesday August 19
On Tuesday August 19, mfedyk@matchmail.com wrote:
> I have another report against rc1 also, but this is with a different line
> number and under different circumstances, but with the same hardware.
>
> Details in dmesg file.
.....
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: RAID5 conf printout:
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: --- rd:3 wd:2 fd:1
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: disk 0, s:0, o:1, n:0 rd:0 us:1 dev:hde3
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: disk 1, s:0, o:1, n:1 rd:1 us:1 dev:hdg3
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: disk 2, s:0, o:0, n:0 rd:0 us:0 dev:[dev 00:00]
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md: bug in file raid5.c, line 1909
>
> And why did I get this bug?
>
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel:
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md:^I**********************************
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md:^I* <COMPLETE RAID STATE PRINTOUT> *
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md:^I**********************************
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md0: <hda3><hdg3><hde3> array superblock:
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md: SB: (V:0.90.0) ID:<dea08cef.28d34b00.79cd55bc.46bdbe06> CT:3f34718d
> Aug 15 16:44:22 srv-lr2600 kernel: md: L5 S159694016 ND:3 RD:3 md0 LO:0 CS:65536
> Aug 15 16:44:23 srv-lr2600 kernel: md: UT:3f3d602e ST:0 AD:2 WD:3 FD:0 SD:1 CSUM:f9253789 E:0001b800
> Aug 15 16:44:23 srv-lr2600 kernel: D 0: DISK<N:0,hde3(33,3),R:0,S:6>
> Aug 15 16:44:23 srv-lr2600 kernel: D 1: DISK<N:1,hdg3(34,3),R:1,S:6>
> Aug 15 16:44:23 srv-lr2600 kernel: D 2: DISK<N:2,[dev 00:00](0,0),R:2,S:8>
> Aug 15 16:44:23 srv-lr2600 kernel: D 3: DISK<N:3,hda3(3,3),R:3,S:0>
Because descriptor 2 (D 2:) in the superblock has state
MD_DISK_REMOVED (S:8) rather and doesn't have the MD_DISK_FAULTY but
set (S:9 or S:1).
As far as I can see, the 2.4 code would never set just MD_DISK_REMOVED
(though it really should cope with it). It is possible that the 2.6
code does. Has this array had 2.6 running on it? Does it have any
interesting history?
NeilBrown
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-22 5:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-19 20:37 md: bug in file raid5.c, line 1909 in 2.4.22-pre7 Mike Fedyk
2003-08-22 5:22 ` Neil Brown [this message]
2003-08-22 17:21 ` 2.6 md raid5 disk faulty marking bug was: " Mike Fedyk
2003-08-25 23:20 ` Neil Brown
2003-09-03 2:04 ` Mike Fedyk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=16197.43158.905670.891510@gargle.gargle.HOWL \
--to=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.