> On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/08/2019 15:10, Song Liu wrote: >> [...] >> >> If we merge this with the MD_BROKEN patch, would the code look simpler? >> >> Thanks, >> Song >> > > Hi Song, I don't believe it changes the complexity/"appearance" of the > code. Both patches are "relatives" in the ideas' realm, but their code > is different in nature. My goal in splitting them was to make more > bisect-able changes. > > But feel free to merge them in a single patch or let me know if you > prefer that way and I can do it. > > There's also a chance I haven't understood your statement/question > correctly heh - if that's the case, please clarify me! I was thinking, if we can set MD_BROKEN when the device fails, we can just test MD_BROKEN in array_state_show() (instead of iterating through all devices). Would this work? Thanks, Song
