> 在 2016年11月30日，06:31，Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 04:19:21PM +0800, JackieLiu wrote:
>> When recovery is complete, we write an empty block and record his
>> position first, then make the data-only stripes rewritten done,
>> the location of the empty block as the last checkpoint position
>> to write into the super block. And we should update last_checkpoint
>> to this empty block position.
>> ...
>> + pos = ctx.pos;
>> + r5l_log_write_empty_meta_block(log, ctx.pos, (ctx.seq += 10));
>
> hmm, move the ctx.seq += 10 out please
yep, if this patch is OK,I will resend an appropriate patch.
>> + ctx.pos = r5l_ring_add(log, ctx.pos, BLOCK_SECTORS);
>> +
>> if ((ctx.data_only_stripes == 0) && (ctx.data_parity_stripes == 0))
>> pr_debug("md/raid:%s: starting from clean shutdown\n",
>> mdname(mddev));
>> @@ -2167,9 +2171,9 @@ static int r5l_recovery_log(struct r5l_log *log)
>>
>> log->log_start = ctx.pos;
>> log->next_checkpoint = ctx.pos;
>> + log->last_checkpoint = pos;
>> log->seq = ctx.seq;
>> - r5l_log_write_empty_meta_block(log, ctx.pos, ctx.seq);
>> - r5l_write_super(log, ctx.pos);
>> + r5l_write_super(log, pos);
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Applied the first 3 patches in the series. This one looks good too, but why we
> always create the empty meta block? It's only required when we don't rewrite
> the data. Eg, the data_only_stripes == 0.
>
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
As you said, when data_only_stripes != 0, does not need to write an empty
meta block, but we need to calculate the position of the first list member and
save it. at the same time, when data_only_stripes == 0, then you need to write
an empty block, and let the super block pointing to him; In any case, Since
there is a possibility that invalid blocks are connected to valid blocks, we still
need to add 10 to them.
In my option, if this empty block has been added, we just let the super block
pointing to him, everything is OK now, the code is more clean, and the logic
is clear.
Thanks
Jackie
--
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
