From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 7 00:17:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441E01065670; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:17:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF368FC0A; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q770HKHN061965; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:17:21 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\)) From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <20120806180617.GJ20560@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:17:20 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <501D52AD.4010105@protected-networks.net> <20120806180617.GJ20560@FreeBSD.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: geom mirror now rebuilding on every reboot? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:17:30 -0000 On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Michael, >=20 > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 12:49:49PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote: > M> Something in -current and recently MFC'd to -stable is causing all = of my > M> gmirror drives to rebuild on reboot :-( > M>=20 > M> Being remote and these being production machines, I suspect SVN = r237929 > M> and r237930 in -current and SVN r238500 to -stable but haven't yet = been > M> able to prove it. >=20 > I'd appreciate if you test that and either confirm or disclaim that > r238500 introduces such regression. Thanks! >=20 I'm not sure how r238500 could affect what Max, myself, and presumably = the original poster are seeing. There's one other change in 9-stable, = r235599, but it looks like a benign change as well. Scott