> From: Neil Brown [mailto:neilb@xxxxxxx] > On Thursday August 23, d0gz.net@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > <Trimming tons of detail, but keeping the thread> > > > > OK.... I've reproduced the original issue on a seperate box. > > 2.6.23-rc3 does not like to grow Raid 5 arrays. MDadm 2.6.3 > > No, you are right. It doesn't. > > Obviously insufficient testing and review - thanks for find it for us. > Agreed - seconded. > This patch seems to make it work - raid5 and raid6. > > Dan: Could you check it for me, particularly the moving of > + async_tx_ack(tx); > + dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); > outside of the loop. > Yes, this definitely needs to be outside the loop. > Greg: could you pleas check it works for you too - it works for me, > but double-testing never hurts. > > Thanks again, > > NeilBrown > > > > --------------------------------- > Fix some bugs with growing raid5/raid6 arrays. > > > > ### Diffstat output > ./drivers/md/raid5.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff .prev/drivers/md/raid5.c ./drivers/md/raid5.c > --- .prev/drivers/md/raid5.c 2007-08-24 16:36:22.000000000 +1000 > +++ ./drivers/md/raid5.c 2007-08-27 20:50:57.000000000 +1000 > @@ -2541,7 +2541,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(raid > struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL; > clear_bit(STRIPE_EXPAND_SOURCE, &sh->state); > for (i = 0; i < sh->disks; i++) > - if (i != sh->pd_idx && (r6s && i != r6s->qd_idx)) { > + if (i != sh->pd_idx && (!r6s || i != r6s->qd_idx)) { > int dd_idx, pd_idx, j; > struct stripe_head *sh2; > > @@ -2574,7 +2574,8 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(raid > set_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &sh2->dev[dd_idx].flags); > for (j = 0; j < conf->raid_disks; j++) > if (j != sh2->pd_idx && > - (r6s && j != r6s->qd_idx) && > + (!r6s || j != raid6_next_disk(sh2->pd_idx, > + sh2->disks)) && > !test_bit(R5_Expanded, &sh2->dev[j].flags)) > break; > if (j == conf->raid_disks) { > @@ -2583,12 +2584,12 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(raid > } > release_stripe(sh2); > > - /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */ > - if (i + 1 >= sh->disks) { > - async_tx_ack(tx); > - dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); > - } > } > + /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */ > + if (tx) { > + async_tx_ack(tx); > + dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); > + } > } > > /* > @@ -2855,7 +2856,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe > sh->disks = conf->raid_disks; > sh->pd_idx = stripe_to_pdidx(sh->sector, conf, > conf->raid_disks); > - s.locked += handle_write_operations5(sh, 0, 1); > + s.locked += handle_write_operations5(sh, 1, 1); How about for clarity: s.locked += handle_write_operations5(sh, RECONSTRUCT_WRITE, 1); > } else if (s.expanded && > !test_bit(STRIPE_OP_POSTXOR, &sh->ops.pending)) { > clear_bit(STRIPE_EXPAND_READY, &sh->state); Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> - 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
