[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <lsq.1439201551.952006542@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:12:31 +0200
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.2 103/110] md/raid1: fix test for 'was read error from
last working device'.
3.2.71-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
commit 34cab6f42003cb06f48f86a86652984dec338ae9 upstream.
When we get a read error from the last working device, we don't
try to repair it, and don't fail the device. We simple report a
read error to the caller.
However the current test for 'is this the last working device' is
wrong.
When there is only one fully working device, it assumes that a
non-faulty device is that device. However a spare which is rebuilding
would be non-faulty but so not the only working device.
So change the test from "!Faulty" to "In_sync". If ->degraded says
there is only one fully working device and this device is in_sync,
this must be the one.
This bug has existed since we allowed read_balance to read from
a recovering spare in v3.0
Reported-and-tested-by: Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@...il.com>
Fixes: 76073054c95b ("md/raid1: clean up read_balance.")
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
drivers/md/raid1.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static void raid1_end_read_request(struc
spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
if (r1_bio->mddev->degraded == conf->raid_disks ||
(r1_bio->mddev->degraded == conf->raid_disks-1 &&
- !test_bit(Faulty, &conf->mirrors[mirror].rdev->flags)))
+ test_bit(In_sync, &conf->mirrors[mirror].rdev->flags)))
uptodate = 1;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conf->device_lock, flags);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists