On Thursday May 24, maccetta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I believe I've come across a bug in the disk read error recovery logic
> for raid1 check/repair operations in 2.6.20. The raid1.c file looks
> identical in 2.6.21 so the problem should still exist there as well.
Yes, you have found a bug, thanks.
>
> I tried the following patch to raid1.c which short-ciruits the data
> comparison in the read error case but otherwise does the rest of the
> sbio prep for the mirror with the error. It seems to have eliminated
> the ATA warning at least. Is it a correct thing to do?
Yes, that is the correct thing to do. I'll get this (with maybe some
small cosmetic changes) upstream.
Thanks again,
NeilBrown
>
> @@ -1235,17 +1242,20 @@
> }
> r1_bio->read_disk = primary;
> for (i=0; i<mddev->raid_disks; i++)
> - if (r1_bio->bios[i]->bi_end_io == end_sync_read &&
> - test_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &r1_bio->bios[i]->bi_flags)) {
> + if (r1_bio->bios[i]->bi_end_io == end_sync_read) {
> int j;
> int vcnt = r1_bio->sectors >> (PAGE_SHIFT- 9);
> struct bio *pbio = r1_bio->bios[primary];
> struct bio *sbio = r1_bio->bios[i];
> - for (j = vcnt; j-- ; )
> - if (memcmp(page_address(pbio->bi_io_vec[j].bv_page),
> - page_address(sbio->bi_io_vec[j].bv_page),
> - PAGE_SIZE))
> - break;
> + if (test_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &sbio->bi_flags)) {
> + for (j = vcnt; j-- ; )
> + if (memcmp(page_address(pbio->bi_io_vec[j].bv_page),
> + page_address(sbio->bi_io_vec[j].bv_page),
> + PAGE_SIZE))
> + break;
> + } else {
> + j = 0;
> + }
> if (j >= 0)
> mddev->resync_mismatches += r1_bio->sectors;
> if (j < 0 || test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK, &mddev->recovery)) {
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
