On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:47:23 +0200 Nagilum <nagilum@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ----- Message from neilb@xxxxxxx --------- > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:15:18 +1000 > From: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Problem re-shaping RAID6 > To: Jérôme Poulin <jeromepoulin@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-raid <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks. > > I fixed this bug a slightly different way > > > > - blocks = ochunk/512 * nchunk/512 * odata * ndata / a; > > + blocks = (ochunk/512) * (nchunk/512) * odata * ndata / a; > > > > > > See > > http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm;a=commitdiff;h=200871adf9e15d5ad985f28c349fd89c386ef48a > > Those static numbers always make my nose wrinkle. > Don't we have the blocksize somewhere already? I'm also concerned what > happens when true 4k sectors are used.. > A sector will always be 512 bytes to Linux, even when we have drives that can only do IO in multiples of 8 sectors. Changing that would cause way to many headaches. Yes, I could possibly use a define for '512'. Some times that is appropriate, but I thing 512 is so clearly "bytes_per_sector" it would just add an unnecessary level of indirection. It is a question of taste really - no right answers. Thanks, NeilBrown -- 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
