> > In my opinion, using a special wait is more clear than calling general md_bitmap_wait_writes(). the md_bitmap_wait_writes makes people > feel bitmap module does repetitive clean job. > > > > My idea like: > > ``` > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md-bitmap.c b/drivers/md/md-bitmap.c > > index 200c5d0f08bf..ea6fa5a2cb6b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/md/md-bitmap.c > > +++ b/drivers/md/md-bitmap.c > > @@ -1723,6 +1723,8 @@ void md_bitmap_flush(struct mddev *mddev) > > bitmap->daemon_lastrun -= sleep; > > md_bitmap_daemon_work(mddev); > > md_bitmap_update_sb(bitmap); > > + if (mddev->bitmap_info.external) > > + md_super_wait(mddev); Agreed. This looks much cleaner. > > } > > > > /* > > @@ -1746,6 +1748,7 @@ void md_bitmap_free(struct bitmap *bitmap) > > /* Shouldn't be needed - but just in case.... */ > > wait_event(bitmap->write_wait, > > atomic_read(&bitmap->pending_writes) == 0); > > + wait_event(mddev->sb_wait, atomic_read(&mddev->pending_writes)==0); I think this call looks redundant as this wait is already covered by md_update_sb() for non-external bitmaps and the proposed change in md_bitmap_flush() for external bitmaps. So, can we omit this change? > > > > /* release the bitmap file */ > > md_bitmap_file_unmap(&bitmap->storage); > > ``` > > I like Heming's version better. > > Hi Sudhakar, > > Are you able to reproduce the issue? If so, could you please verify > that Heming's > change fixes the issue? Hi Song, Heming, Please review my comments above. I can try to reproduce the issue with the fix once we agree on the final fix. Thanks Sudhakar > > Thanks, > Song
