> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-raid- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kwolek, Adam > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:30 AM > To: NeilBrown > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Williams, Dan J; Ciechanowski, Ed; > Neubauer, Wojciech > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] imsm:FIX: change arrays reshape order > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NeilBrown [mailto:neilb@xxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:18 AM > > To: Kwolek, Adam > > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Williams, Dan J; Ciechanowski, Ed; > > Neubauer, Wojciech > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] imsm:FIX: change arrays reshape order > > > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:59:22 +0100 Adam Kwolek > <adam.kwolek@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > Reshape is started from second array, so it causes imsm > > incompatibility > > > and problems during second array start. > > > > > > Reshape should be started in arrays metadata order. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > super-intel.c | 9 ++++++++- > > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c > > > index f578057..8484df6 100644 > > > --- a/super-intel.c > > > +++ b/super-intel.c > > > @@ -5848,6 +5848,7 @@ static int > > apply_reshape_container_disks_update(struct imsm_update_reshape *u, > > > int devices_to_reshape = 1; > > > struct imsm_super *mpb = super->anchor; > > > int ret_val = 0; > > > + unsigned int dev_id; > > > > > > dprintf("imsm: imsm_process_update() for update_reshape\n"); > > > > > > @@ -5877,11 +5878,17 @@ static int > > apply_reshape_container_disks_update(struct imsm_update_reshape *u, > > > " mpb->num_raid_devs = %i\n", mpb->num_raid_devs); > > > /* manage changes in volume > > > */ > > > - for (id = super->devlist ; id; id = id->next) { > > > + for (dev_id = 0; dev_id < mpb->num_raid_devs; dev_id++) { > > > void **sp = *space_list; > > > struct imsm_dev *newdev; > > > struct imsm_map *newmap, *oldmap; > > > > > > + for (id = super->devlist ; id; id = id->next) { > > > + if (id->index == dev_id) > > > + break; > > > + } > > > > Could you replace that loop with a call to get_imsm_dev please? > > > > Otherwise, this look good. > > > > Thanks, > > NeilBrown > > In a while ;) > BR > Adam I think we should leave this patch as I've proposed. I need to work not on imsm_dev but on intel_dev. intel_dev is required for memory re-linking. If I use there get_imsm_dev() I have to work on 2 pointers set, and keep them in sync. This can introduce more noise in to code. Than 'for' loop you want to remove. Summarizing if I use get_imsm_dev(), I cannot remove this loop (it is required for memory management purposes, few lines below: id->dev = newdev, I need reference to correct intel_dev). BR Adam > > > > > + if (id == NULL) > > > + break; > > > if (!sp) > > > continue; > > > *space_list = *sp; > > -- > 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 -- 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
