> On 29 May 2018, at 15.15, Konopko, Igor J <igor.j.konopko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Javier Gonzalez [mailto:javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >> This case cannot occur on the only user of the function >> (pblk_recov_l2p()). On the previous check (pblk_line_was_written()), we >> verify the state of the line and the position of the first good chunk. In >> the case of a bad line (less chunks than a given threshold to allow >> emeta), the recovery will not be carried out in the line. > You are right. It looks that during my testing there was some > inconsistency between chunks state table which is verified inside > pblk_line_was_written() and blk_bitmap which was read from emeta and > is verified in pblk_line_smeta_start(). I'm living decision to > maintainers whether we should keep this sanity check or not - it > really just pass gracefully the result from pblk_line_smeta_start() > where similar sanity check is present. > Let's avoid an extra check now that there is no users for it in the current flow. If we have a new use for pblk_line_smeta_start() on a flow that does cannot offer the same guarantees, we can add it at that point. Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
