xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS/kernel-2.5.x/mdadm mkfs problem (second try)

To: Vinh Ly <vly@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS/kernel-2.5.x/mdadm mkfs problem (second try)
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:06:05 +1000
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10304102307400.5431-100000@jupiter.ucsd.edu>
References: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10304102307400.5431-100000@jupiter.ucsd.edu>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
Oops, sorry - I forgot about this one.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:09:05PM -0700, Vinh Ly wrote:
> disto = forRH-8.0-SGI-XFS-1.2.0-v4.iso, RedHat patches current as of last 
> Monday
> kernel = 2.5.66 + linux-2.5.66-xfs-2003-03-30.patch
> md = mdadm 1.2
> raid level = 0 and 5 (4 SCSI disks)
> xfsprogs = 2.3.5 and 2.3.9
> 
> When I run the command "mkfs.xfs -f /dev/md0", I get this error:
> 
> MD array /dev/md0 not in clean state
> 
> Version 2.3.5 and 2.3.9 give the same error.
> 
> It looks like the way it checks for the
> md state is different.  Here's the snipet from libdisk/md.c:
> 
> /* Check state */
>               if (md.state) {
>                       fprintf(stderr, _("MD array %s not in clean state\n"),
>                               dfile);
>                       exit(1);
>               }
> 
> In the mdadm 1.2 source (Examine.c), they have this snipet:
> 
> printf("          State : %s, %serrors\n",
>       (super.state&(1<<MD_SB_CLEAN))?"clean":"dirty",
>       (super.state&(1<<MD_SB_ERRORS))?"":"no-");
> 
> and super is defined as mdp_super_t (called md_array_info in xfsprogs).
> And MD_SB_CLEAN=0 and MD_SB_ERRORS=1.
> 
> The output from "mdadm --examine /dev/md0" and "cat /etc/mdstat" look fine.
> 
> The mkfs command works fine on 2.4.20 w/ the xfs patch from
> snapshot-xfs-2.4.20-2003-03-19_04:55_UTC.
> 
> Any ideas?  Am I supposed to use LVM instead in 2.5.x?

No, this looks like a mkfs bug.  I will checkin the fix shortly,
it seems fairly simple from a quick look at it.

thanks.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>