Hi Guoqing,
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:00:25 +0800
Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -281,6 +282,17 @@ static void linear_status (struct seq_file
> > *seq, struct mddev *mddev) seq_printf(seq, " %dk rounding",
> > mddev->chunk_sectors / 2); }
> >
> > +static void linear_error(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
> > +
> > + if (!test_and_set_bit(MD_BROKEN, &rdev->mddev->flags))
> > + pr_crit("md/linear%s: Disk failure on %s
> > detected.\n"
> > + "md/linear:%s: Cannot continue, failing
> > array.\n",
> > + mdname(mddev), bdevname(rdev->bdev, b),
> > + mdname(mddev));
> > +}
> > +
>
> Do you consider to use %pg to print block device?
Will do.
> > @@ -588,6 +589,17 @@ static void raid0_status(struct seq_file *seq,
> > struct mddev *mddev) return;
> > }
> >
> > +static void raid0_error(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
> > +
> > + if (!test_and_set_bit(MD_BROKEN, &rdev->mddev->flags))
> > + pr_crit("md/raid0%s: Disk failure on %s
> > detected.\n"
> > + "md/raid0:%s: Cannot continue, failing
> > array.\n",
> > + mdname(mddev), bdevname(rdev->bdev, b),
> > + mdname(mddev));
> > +}
> > +
> > static void *raid0_takeover_raid45(struct mddev *mddev)
> > {
> > struct md_rdev *rdev;
> > @@ -763,6 +775,7 @@ static struct md_personality raid0_personality=
> > .size = raid0_size,
> > .takeover = raid0_takeover,
> > .quiesce = raid0_quiesce,
> > + .error_handler = raid0_error,
> > };
> >
>
> What is the advantage of adding error_handler for raid0 and linear?
> IOW, without implement the error_handler, is there some existing
> issue?
>
There is no issue. It was suggested by Song:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-raid/CAPhsuW4X94eJ8aG6i7F0zCmgjuWHSRWuBH2gOJjTe5uWg_rMvQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks,
Mariusz
