DDF: check_secondary: fix treatment of missing BVDs
Unused BVDs should just be skipped instead of bailing out. Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@arcor.de> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
This commit is contained in:
parent
d6e7b0837d
commit
c98567bac1
|
@ -3222,10 +3222,8 @@ static int check_secondary(const struct vcl *vc)
|
||||||
__set_sec_seen(conf->sec_elmnt_seq);
|
__set_sec_seen(conf->sec_elmnt_seq);
|
||||||
for (i = 0; i < conf->sec_elmnt_count-1; i++) {
|
for (i = 0; i < conf->sec_elmnt_count-1; i++) {
|
||||||
const struct vd_config *bvd = vc->other_bvds[i];
|
const struct vd_config *bvd = vc->other_bvds[i];
|
||||||
if (bvd == NULL) {
|
if (bvd == NULL)
|
||||||
pr_err("BVD %d is missing\n", i+1);
|
continue;
|
||||||
return -1;
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
if (bvd->srl != conf->srl) {
|
if (bvd->srl != conf->srl) {
|
||||||
pr_err("Inconsistent secondary RAID level across BVDs\n");
|
pr_err("Inconsistent secondary RAID level across BVDs\n");
|
||||||
return -1;
|
return -1;
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue