On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday May 6, snitzer@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > It looks like bitmap_update_sb()'s incrementing of events_cleared (on > > behalf of the local member) could be racing with the fact that the NBD > > member becomes faulty (whereby making the array degraded). This > > allows the events_cleared to reflect a clean->dirty transition last > > occurred before the array became degraded. My reasoning is: If it was > > a clean->dirty transition the bitmap still has the associated dirty > > bit set in the local member's bitmap, so using the bitmap to resync is > > valid. > > > > thanks, > > Mike > > Thanks for persisting. I think I understand what is going on now. > > How about this patch? It is similar to your, but instead of depending > on the odd/even state of the event counter, it directly checks the > clean/dirty state of the array. Hi Neil, Your revised patch works great and is obviously cleaner. Thanks! Tested-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@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
