On 2022-04-26 19:53, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>> +static bool stripe_ahead_of_reshape(struct mddev *mddev, struct
>> r5conf *conf,
>> + struct stripe_head *sh)
>> +{
>> + sector_t max_sector = 0, min_sector = MaxSector;
>> + bool ret = false;
>> + int dd_idx;
>> +
>> + for (dd_idx = 0; dd_idx < sh->disks; dd_idx++) {
>> + if (dd_idx == sh->pd_idx)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + min_sector = min(min_sector, sh->dev[dd_idx].sector);
>> + max_sector = min(max_sector, sh->dev[dd_idx].sector);
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>> +
>> + if (!range_ahead_of_reshape(mddev, min_sector, max_sector,
>> + conf->reshape_progress))
>> + /* mismatch, need to try again */
>> + ret = true;
>
> I think we can just open code range_ahead_of_reshape.
I think this way is much easier to read. GCC is much
> And seems the above is not same as below original checking which compare
> logical_sector with reshape_progress. Is it intentional or am I miss
> something?
Yes, this was intentional, the change is necessary for the next patch to
ensure that all pages in a stripe are ahead of the reshape. This was not
intended as just a cleanup patch.
Logan
