[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200919065816.GA8237@lst.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:58:16 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] drbd: remove RB_CONGESTED_REMOTE
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:55:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 10-09-20 16:48:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This case isn't ever used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
>
> Are you sure it's never used? As far as I'm reading drdb code the contents
> of the disk_conf structure seems to be received through netlink (that code
> is really a macro hell) and so read_balancing attribute passed to
> remote_due_to_read_balancing() can have any value userspace passed to it.
You are right, looking at how disk_conf is used I can't convince myself
that it is indeed not set through netlink and I've thus dropped the
patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists