[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2766d001-f618-d224-f8a9-ec38ed1dc2a7@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:04:47 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: xni@...hat.com, mariusz.tkaczyk@...ux.intel.com,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 6/7] md: factor out a helper rdev_addable() from
remove_and_add_spares()
Hi,
在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道:
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
>>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>>> +{
>>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
>>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
>>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
>>
>> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
>> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's
>> define
>> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that
>> meaning. In
>> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array.
>
> There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if
> they have common conditions.
Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to
factor out a common helper for them to use.
In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means
if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be
added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this?
Thanks,
Kuai
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Song
>>
>>
>>> + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
>>> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + return true;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
>>> struct md_rdev *this)
>>> {
>>> @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev
>>> *mddev,
>>> continue;
>>> if (rdev_is_spare(rdev))
>>> spares++;
>>> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
>>> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
>>> continue;
>>> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
>>> - continue;
>>> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>>> - continue;
>>> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
>>> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
>>> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
>>> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
>>> - continue;
>>> -
>>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
>>> rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
>>> - }
>>> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
>>> /* failure here is OK */
>>> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
>>> --
>>> 2.39.2
>>>
>> .
>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists