linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] md/raid5: Check all disks in a stripe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <78b4b92f-ae89-2e54-f96f-21d338ca042b@deltatee.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:11:13 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Martin Oliveira <Martin.Oliveira@...eticom.com>,
        David Sloan <David.Sloan@...eticom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] md/raid5: Check all disks in a stripe_head for
 reshape progress



On 2022-04-26 19:53, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>> +static bool stripe_ahead_of_reshape(struct mddev *mddev, struct
>> r5conf *conf,
>> +                    struct stripe_head *sh)
>> +{
>> +    sector_t max_sector = 0, min_sector = MaxSector;
>> +    bool ret = false;
>> +    int dd_idx;
>> +
>> +    for (dd_idx = 0; dd_idx < sh->disks; dd_idx++) {
>> +        if (dd_idx == sh->pd_idx)
>> +            continue;
>> +
>> +        min_sector = min(min_sector, sh->dev[dd_idx].sector);
>> +        max_sector = min(max_sector, sh->dev[dd_idx].sector);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>> +
>> +    if (!range_ahead_of_reshape(mddev, min_sector, max_sector,
>> +                     conf->reshape_progress))
>> +        /* mismatch, need to try again */
>> +        ret = true;
> 
> I think we can just open code range_ahead_of_reshape.

I think this way is much easier to read. GCC is much

> And seems the above is not same as below original checking which compare
> logical_sector with reshape_progress. Is it intentional or am I miss
> something?

Yes, this was intentional, the change is necessary for the next patch to
ensure that all pages in a stripe are ahead of the reshape. This was not
intended as just a cleanup patch.

Logan