Hi Xiao,
On 20.10.2021 16:38, Xiao Ni wrote:
+ char dv[32], dv_rep[32];
+
+ sprintf(dv, "/sys/dev/block/%d:%d",
+ disks[d*2].major, disks[d*2].minor);
+ sprintf(dv_rep, "/sys/dev/block/%d:%d",
+ disks[d*2+1].major, disks[d*2+1].minor);Please use snprintf and PATH_MAX instead 32.
+
+ if ((!access(dv, R_OK) &&
+ (disks[d*2].state & (1<<MD_DISK_SYNC))) ||
IMO not correct style, please verify with checkpatch.
should be: [d * 2]
+ (!access(dv_rep, R_OK) &&
+ (disks[d*2+1].state & (1<<MD_DISK_SYNC)))) {
Could you define function for that?
something like (you can add access() verification if needed):
is_dev_alive(mdu_disk_info_t *disk)
{
char *devnm = devid2kname(makedev..);
if (devnm)
return true;
return false;
}
using true/false will require to add #include <stdbool.h>.
Jes suggests to use meaningful return values. This is only
suggestion so you can ignore it and use 0 and 1.
and then check:
if (is_dev_alive([d * 2]) & disks[d * 2].state & (1<<MD_DISK_SYNC) ||
(is_dev_alive([d * 2 + 1]) & disks[d * 2 + 1].state & (1<<MD_DISK_SYNC))
What do you think?
Thanks,
Mariusz
