raz ben yehuda wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 19:24 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
raz ben yehuda wrote:
md assumes that personality has all its membes of the same
size,A fact that is incorrect for raid0.
md.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Signed-off-by: razb <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index 0f11fd1..e14fb90 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -5683,7 +5683,8 @@ static void status_resync(struct seq_file *seq, mddev_t * mddev)
max_sectors = mddev->resync_max_sectors;
else
max_sectors = mddev->dev_sectors;
-
+ if (mddev->level == 0)
+ max_sectors = mddev->resync_max_sectors;
/*
* Should not happen.
*/
@@ -6280,7 +6281,13 @@ void md_do_sync(mddev_t *mddev)
rdev->recovery_offset < j)
j = rdev->recovery_offset;
}
-
+ /*
+ * raid0 members may not be of the same size,use array_size.
+ */
+ if (mddev->level == 0) {
+ max_sectors = mddev->array_sectors;
+ j = mddev->recovery_cp;
+ }
printk(KERN_INFO "md: %s of RAID array %s\n", desc, mdname(mddev));
printk(KERN_INFO "md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed:"
" %d KB/sec/disk.\n", speed_min(mddev));
If I admit I only spent about 20 minutes looking at this code will you
explain why you use different fields of the struct to set max_sectors? I
md_sync uses max_sectors as an ending point of the reshape process.
problem is that md assumes all raid's members are of the same size, so
it uses dev_sectors and this is not true to raid0 with multiple zones
guess my real confusion is why resync_max_sectors would be valid, given
that raid0 has no redundancy. Or are you using it in some obscure way
for reshape values? The values stored in the field don't really to be
what you want... Yes, the reshape is new to me.
It has nothing to do with redundancy, but with the state machine of md.
I agree that there should be more elegant way to fix this, but it means
bigger fixes in md, and this is something I definitely don't want
to do.
There is always a trade off between cost of implementation and cost of
maintenance. If Neil is happy with this I have no objection, it just
seems to invite misunderstanding at some future enhancement. Perhaps a
an additional comment is desirable, although the name of the field
invites confusion, pity there's no reshape_* field to use, for
readability if nothing else.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
Obscure bug of 2004: BASH BUFFER OVERFLOW - if bash is being run by a
normal user and is setuid root, with the "vi" line edit mode selected,
and the character set is "big5," an off-by-one error occurs during
wildcard (glob) expansion.
--
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
