File 0003-Detail-don-t-assume-a-particular-disk-number-of-miss.patch of Package mdadm.1739

From 78a5dc039b9344762b8f7cde2d159b482993eb2d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:51:54 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Detail: don't assume a particular 'disk' number of missing
 devices.

When a particular raid-disk is missing, we don't know which disk number
it should have, and reporting a number could result in duplicate
numbers (with v1.x metadata - never with the old 0.90).

So set the default to -1 and recoginise that when printing.

References: bsc#954769

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
---
 Detail.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Detail.c b/Detail.c
index cbf1f9a..ef2aabd 100644
--- a/Detail.c
+++ b/Detail.c
@@ -299,7 +299,8 @@ int Detail(char *dev, struct context *c)
 	for (d = 0; d < max_disks * 2; d++) {
 		disks[d].state = (1<<MD_DISK_REMOVED);
 		disks[d].major = disks[d].minor = 0;
-		disks[d].number = disks[d].raid_disk = d/2;
+		disks[d].number = -1;
+		disks[d].raid_disk = d/2;
 	}
 
 	next = array.raid_disks*2;
@@ -622,6 +623,9 @@ This is pretty boring
 			else if (disk.raid_disk < 0)
 				printf("   %5d   %5d    %5d        -     ",
 				       disk.number, disk.major, disk.minor);
+			else if (disk.number < 0)
+				printf("       -   %5d    %5d    %5d     ",
+				       disk.major, disk.minor, disk.raid_disk);
 			else
 				printf("   %5d   %5d    %5d    %5d     ",
 				       disk.number, disk.major, disk.minor, disk.raid_disk);
-- 
2.6.2