On 03/15/2017 12:48 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 05:23:59PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
Previously, we clone both bio and repl_bio in raid10_write_request,
then add the cloned bio to plug->pending or conf->pending_bio_list
based on plug or not, and most of the logics are same for the two
conditions.
So introduce handle_clonebio (a better name is welcome) for it, and
use replacement parameter to distinguish the difference. No functional
changes in the patch.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@xxxxxxxx>
---
Another reason for it is to improve the readability of code, but
I didn't touch raid10 before so this is labeled as RFC.
drivers/md/raid10.c | 172 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
index b1b1f982a722..02d8eff8d26e 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
@@ -1188,18 +1188,81 @@ static void raid10_read_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
return;
}
-static void raid10_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
- struct r10bio *r10_bio)
+static void handle_clonebio(struct mddev *mddev, struct r10bio *r10_bio,
+ struct bio *bio, int i, int replacement,
+ int max_sectors)
Maybe raid10_write_one_disk?
Thanks for review, I will use it unless a better name is found.
Please replace 'i' with a meaningful name and
change to 'boo' for replacement.
Ok, I would replace 'i' with 'n_copy', what is the meaning of 'boo'?
IMO, replacement fits better here, thanks.
+ if (r10_bio->devs[i].bio)
+ handle_clonebio(mddev, r10_bio, bio, i, 0, max_sectors);
+ if (r10_bio->devs[i].repl_bio)
+ handle_clonebio(mddev, r10_bio, bio, i, 1, max_sectors);
Regards,
Guoqing
--
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
