2.6.23-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

patch 0f94e87cdeaaac9f0f9a28a5dd2a5070b87cd3e8 in mainline.

We currently do not wait for the block from the missing device to be
computed from parity before copying data to the new stripe layout.

The change in the raid6 code is not techincally needed as we don't delay
data block recovery in the same way for raid6 yet.  But making the change
now is safer long-term.

This bug exists in 2.6.23 and 2.6.24-rc

Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Acked-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

---
 drivers/md/raid5.c |    6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -2875,7 +2875,8 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe
 		md_done_sync(conf->mddev, STRIPE_SECTORS, 1);
 	}
 
-	if (s.expanding && s.locked == 0)
+	if (s.expanding && s.locked == 0 &&
+	    !test_bit(STRIPE_OP_COMPUTE_BLK, &sh->ops.pending))
 		handle_stripe_expansion(conf, sh, NULL);
 
 	if (sh->ops.count)
@@ -3077,7 +3078,8 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe
 		md_done_sync(conf->mddev, STRIPE_SECTORS, 1);
 	}
 
-	if (s.expanding && s.locked == 0)
+	if (s.expanding && s.locked == 0 &&
+	    !test_bit(STRIPE_OP_COMPUTE_BLK, &sh->ops.pending))
 		handle_stripe_expansion(conf, sh, &r6s);
 
 	spin_unlock(&sh->lock);

-- 
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/