On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:32:37 +0000 Markus Stockhausen
<stockhausen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> before sending a wrong patch. Could you help me to understand the reason
> for an unconditional singular
Sending a wrong patch is not such a bad thing - it would help me know
what you are thinking, and so reduce guess-work :-)
>
> set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
>
> in function handle_stripe_dirtying of raid5.c? It seems to be there since
> its introduction somewhere 8 years ago - patch "raid5: refactor handle_stripe5
> and handle_stripe6 (v3)".
>
> If I understand the idea behind the flag right it is required to ensure
> handling of the stripe in the next handle_stripe() run. That would only make
> sense if we set it unconditionally OR depending on some changes to the
> stripe. The above function does both. See a few lines below in the deep
> if-blocks.
So I'm guessing that you want to remove one of those? Probably
justified.
That duplication goes back to
Commit: 396a6123577d ("v2.4.5.4 -> v2.4.5.5")
I think your understanding of STRIPE_HANDLE is pretty spot-on.
NeilBrown
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Markus
--
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
