On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:45:16 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/12/2013 07:34 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>>> "hpa" == H Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > hpa> The second question is if we should disable WRITE SAME for raid1/10 > > hpa> (what about raid0?) for 3.10/stable or if your patch really is > > hpa> sufficient... "just adds another heuristic" makes me nervous. > > > > I think we should disable 1+10 in stable until we get the recovery > > scenario sorted out. > > > > I don't believe there are any problems with raid0. > > > > How does this look? > > -hpa > Promising - thanks. However should we do the same thing in raid5.c too? As far as I can tell, the default set by blk_set_stacking_limits() (which md calls) is to allow WRITE_SAME if all all underlying devices do. But I'm pretty sure raid5 will do the wrong thing with a WRITE_SAME request. ?? Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
