On 1/6/20 6:15 PM, Song Liu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:34 AM Guoqing Jiang
<guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/3/20 11:56 PM, Song Liu wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:48 AM Song Liu <liu.song.a23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:56 AM <jgq516@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
---
drivers/md/raid5.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
index d4d3b67ffbba..70ef2367fa64 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -5481,7 +5481,9 @@ static void release_stripe_plug(struct mddev *mddev,
INIT_LIST_HEAD(cb->temp_inactive_list + i);
}
- if (!test_and_set_bit(STRIPE_ON_UNPLUG_LIST, &sh->state))
+ if (!atomic_read(&sh->count) == 0 &&
"!atomic_read(&sh->count) == 0" is confusing. Do you actually mean
"atomic_read(&sh->count) == 0"?
If "atomic_read(&sh->count) == 0" is true, which means the sh is handled by
do_release_stripe, so the sh could be added to other lists as I said in
header,
so I think we should not add the sh to cb->list for this case. IOW, the
sh could
be added to callback list only if it's count is not '0', no?
I see. I guess it is cleaner with
atomic_read(&sh->count) != 0
or
atomic_read(&sh->count) > 0
?
Yes, it is cleaner and will change it.
Thanks,
Guoqing
