NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 19 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
>> NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> @@ -10700,6 +10700,9 @@ static int imsm_manage_reshape(
>>> ret_val = 1;
>>> abort:
>>> free(buf);
>>> + sysfs_set_num(sra, NULL, "suspend_lo", 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL);
>>> + sysfs_set_num(sra, NULL, "suspend_hi", 0);
>>> + sysfs_set_num(sra, NULL, "suspend_lo", 0);
>>>
>>> return ret_val;
>>> }
>>
>> This does indeed match the behavior of abort_reshape(), however looking
>> through git history, I cannot find any explanation as to why the code
>> sets suspend_lo twice.
>>
>> Any chance you can enlighten me why this is necessary?
>
> This is what I never got when I was maintainer - people insisting
> (rightly) that I explain the details... Thanks!
>
>
> Prior to
> Commit: 23ddff3792f6 ("md: allow suspend_lo and suspend_hi to decrease
> as well as increase.")
> you could only increase suspend_{lo,hi} unless the region they covered
> was empty. So to reset to 0, you need to push suspend_lo up past
> suspend_hi first.
> So to maximize the chance of mdadm working on all kernels, we want to keep
> doing that.
>
> Maybe you could add that to the change comment? Or should there be a
> comment in abort_reshape()??
Thanks for the clarification - I'll add a documentation comment in front
of your patch then.
Cheers,
Jes
--
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
