Re: mdadm: Patch to restrict --size when shrinking unless forced
From: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-10-10 20:09:37
From: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-10-10 20:09:37
On 10/09/2017 04:04 PM, Phil Turmel wrote:
On 10/09/2017 12:10 AM, NeilBrown wrote:quoted
If there is some action that mdadm can currently be told to perform, and when it tries to perform that action it corrupts the array, then it is certainly appropriate to teach mdadm not to perform that action. It shouldn't even perform that action with --force. I agree that changing mdadm like this is complementary to changing the kernel. Both are useful.A certain amount of the trouble with all of this is the english meaning of "grow" doesn't really match what mdadm allows. Might it be reasonable to reject "--grow" operations that reduce the final array size, and introduce the complementary "--reduce" operation that rejects array size increases? Both operations would share the current code, just apply a different sanity check before proceeding.
"grow" in mdadmlish translates to reshape/resize in English. Starting to introduce new keywords for this really makes no sense and just cause confusion, so I am not going to support that. Jes