[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f4bf4c4-1f1f-b1a6-5d91-2dbe02f61e67@youngman.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 20:02:11 +0000
From: antlists <antlists@...ngman.org.uk>
To: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, axboe@...nel.dk,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] badblocks: Improvement badblocks_set() for handling
multiple ranges
On 03/12/2020 17:15, Coly Li wrote:
> This patch is an initial effort to improve badblocks_set() for setting
> bad blocks range when it covers multiple already set bad ranges in the
> bad blocks table, and to do it as fast as possible.
Is this your patch, or submitted as part of the bug report?
"Heavily based on MD badblocks code from Neil Brown"
How much has this code got to do with the mdraid subsystem? Because
badblocks in mdraid has an appalling reputation, with many people
wanting to just rip it out.
If this code is separate from the mdraid implementation, any chance you
can work with it, and fix that at the same time? Or make it redundant! I
don't quite see why mdraid should need a badblocks list given modern
disk drives.
And it's on my to-do list (if I can find the time!!!) to integrate
dm-integrity into mdraid, at which point md badblocks should be irrelevant.
Hope I'm not being a shower of cold water, and if you want to fix all
this, good on you, but to the extent that this is relevant to
linux-raid, I think a lot of people will be asking "What's the point?"
Cheers,
Wol
Powered by blists - more mailing lists