On Wednesday February 27, ross@willow.seitz.com wrote: > > > What I don't understand is, why is ->faulty flag used all thru md.c when > > > we have mark_disk_faulty(sb->disks+disk->number); and bitmaped status for > > > the same reason. Are they diferent in any case, or is it the case, that > > > structure mdp_disk_t used in disk_faulty is not accessible on those > > > places. > > > > There is a lot of this sort of duplication of information in the md > > code. I did a bit of work to clean it up a while ago, but never > > completed it. I should dig out that patch one day and try again. > > Is the idea of the patch as straight-forward as it sounds? I'd be > interested in learning more about the RAID code - would working your > changes be a simple enough exercise to begin with? I think it is as simple as it sounds... Certainly it could be a useful exercise to work though them and convince yourself. A useful approach might be to confirm that ever reference to the ->disks lists in the mddev structure is now protected by the reconfig_sem semaphore. I started doing this, and decide that I was fairly sure the rest was right. NeilBrown > > Ross Vandegrift > ross@willow.seitz.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
