1. 30 Dec, 2011 1 commit
    • Greg Ungerer's avatar
      m68knommu: fix broken boot logo inclusion · c0e0c89c
      Greg Ungerer authored
      Compiling for the m68knommu/68328 Palm/Pilot target you get:
      
        AS      arch/m68k/platform/68328/head-pilot.o
      arch/m68k/platform/68328/head-pilot.S:37:23: fatal error: bootlogo.rh: No such file or directory
      
      The build for this target used to do a conversion on a C coded boot logo
      and include this in the head assembler code. This got broken by changes to
      the local Makefile.
      
      Clean all this up by just including the C coded boot logo struct in the
      C code. With the appropriate alignment attribute there is no difference
      to the way it can be used.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org>
      c0e0c89c
  2. 24 Dec, 2011 21 commits
  3. 23 Dec, 2011 14 commits
  4. 22 Dec, 2011 4 commits
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://neil.brown.name/md · ad1fca20
      Linus Torvalds authored
      * 'for-linus' of git://neil.brown.name/md:
        md/bitmap: It is OK to clear bits during recovery.
        md: don't give up looking for spares on first failure-to-add
        md/raid5: ensure correct assessment of drives during degraded reshape.
        md/linear: fix hot-add of devices to linear arrays.
      ad1fca20
    • NeilBrown's avatar
      md/bitmap: It is OK to clear bits during recovery. · 961902c0
      NeilBrown authored
      commit d0a4bb49 introduced a
      regression which is annoying but fairly harmless.
      
      When writing to an array that is undergoing recovery (a spare
      in being integrated into the array), writing to the array will
      set bits in the bitmap, but they will not be cleared when the
      write completes.
      
      For bits covering areas that have not been recovered yet this is not a
      problem as the recovery will clear the bits.  However bits set in
      already-recovered region will stay set and never be cleared.
      This doesn't risk data integrity.  The only negatives are:
       - next time there is a crash, more resyncing than necessary will
         be done.
       - the bitmap doesn't look clean, which is confusing.
      
      While an array is recovering we don't want to update the
      'events_cleared' setting in the bitmap but we do still want to clear
      bits that have very recently been set - providing they were written to
      the recovering device.
      
      So split those two needs - which previously both depended on 'success'
      and always clear the bit of the write went to all devices.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
      961902c0
    • NeilBrown's avatar
      md: don't give up looking for spares on first failure-to-add · 60fc1370
      NeilBrown authored
      Before performing a recovery we try to remove any spares that
      might not be working, then add any that might have become relevant.
      
      Currently we abort on the first spare that cannot be added.
      This is a false optimisation.
      It is conceivable that - depending on rules in the personality - a
      subsequent spare might be accepted.
      Also the loop does other things like count the available spares and
      reset the 'recovery_offset' value.
      
      If we abort early these might not happen properly.
      
      So remove the early abort.
      
      In particular if you have an array what is undergoing recovery and
      which has extra spares, then the recovery may not restart after as
      reboot as the could of 'spares' might end up as zero.
      Reported-by: default avatarAnssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@iki.fi>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
      60fc1370
    • NeilBrown's avatar
      md/raid5: ensure correct assessment of drives during degraded reshape. · 30d7a483
      NeilBrown authored
      While reshaping a degraded array (as when reshaping a RAID0 by first
      converting it to a degraded RAID4) we currently get confused about
      which devices are in_sync.  In most cases we get it right, but in the
      region that is being reshaped we need to treat non-failed devices as
      in-sync when we have the data but haven't actually written it out yet.
      Reported-by: default avatarAdam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
      30d7a483