[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-raid
Subject:    Re: [PATCH mdadm v2] super1: report truncated device
From:       Jes Sorensen <jes () trained-monkey ! org>
Date:       2022-08-25 13:42:40
Message-ID: 571bde96-e70d-9c87-1544-49790844d160 () trained-monkey ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 8/25/22 03:59, Mariusz Tkaczyk wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 10:24:21 +1000
> "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>>> What is the consensus on this discussion? I see Coly pulled this into
>>> his tree, but I don't see Mariusz's last concern being addressed.  
>>
>> I don't think we reached a consensus.  I probably got distracted.
>> I don't like that suggestion from Mariusz as it makes assumptions that I
>> didn't want to make.  I think it is safest to always test dsize against
>> bother ->size and ->data_size without baking in assumptions about when
>> either is meaningful.

No worries, distraction is my middle name these days :)

> Hi Neil,
> It seems that I failed to understand it again. You are right, you approach is
> safer. Please fix stylistic issues then and I'm fine with the change.

Thanks Mariusz

Jes

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]