> 2022年1月2日 21:48，Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 12:05 AM Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Recently I received a bug report that current badblocks code does not
>> properly handle multiple ranges. For example,
>> badblocks_set(bb, 32, 1, true);
>> badblocks_set(bb, 34, 1, true);
>> badblocks_set(bb, 36, 1, true);
>> badblocks_set(bb, 32, 12, true);
>> Then indeed badblocks_show() reports,
>> 32 3
>> 36 1
>> But the expected bad blocks table should be,
>> 32 12
>> Obviously only the first 2 ranges are merged and badblocks_set() returns
>> and ignores the rest setting range.
>>
>> This behavior is improper, if the caller of badblocks_set() wants to set
>> a range of blocks into bad blocks table, all of the blocks in the range
>> should be handled even the previous part encountering failure.
>>
>> The desired way to set bad blocks range by badblocks_set() is,
>> - Set as many as blocks in the setting range into bad blocks table.
>> - Merge the bad blocks ranges and occupy as less as slots in the bad
>> blocks table.
>> - Fast.
>>
>> Indeed the above proposal is complicated, especially with the following
>> restrictions,
>> - The setting bad blocks range can be acknowledged or not acknowledged.
>> - The bad blocks table size is limited.
>> - Memory allocation should be avoided.
>>
>> The basic idea of the patch is to categorize all possible bad blocks
>> range setting combinations into to much less simplified and more less
> typo error? s/to//g
It will be fixed in next version. Thanks.
>
>> special conditions. Inside badblocks_set() there is an implicit loop
>> composed by jumping between labels 're_insert' and 'update_sectors'. No
>> matter how large the setting bad blocks range is, in every loop just a
>> minimized range from the head is handled by a pre-defined behavior from
>> one of the categorized conditions. The logic is simple and code flow is
>> manageable.
>>
>> The different relative layout between the setting range and existing bad
>> block range are checked and handled (merge, combine, overwrite, insert)
>> by the helpers in previous patch. This patch is to make all the helpers
>> work together with the above idea.
>>
>> This patch only has the algorithm improvement for badblocks_set(). There
>> are following patches contain improvement for badblocks_clear() and
>> badblocks_check(). But the algorithm in badblocks_set() is fundamental
>> and typical, other improvement in clear and check routines are based on
>> all the helpers and ideas in this patch.
>>
>> In order to make the change to be more clear for code review, this patch
>> does not directly modify existing badblocks_set(), and just add a new
>> one named _badblocks_set(). Later patch will remove current existing
>> badblocks_set() code and make it as a wrapper of _badblocks_set(). So
>> the new added change won't be mixed with deleted code, the code review
>> can be easier.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Wols Lists <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> block/badblocks.c | 560 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 540 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/badblocks.c b/block/badblocks.c
>> index 30958cc4469f..f45f82646bb7 100644
>> --- a/block/badblocks.c
>> +++ b/block/badblocks.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,322 @@
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>
>> +/*
>> + * The purpose of badblocks set/clear is to manage bad blocks ranges which are
>> + * identified by LBA addresses.
>> + *
>> + * When the caller of badblocks_set() wants to set a range of bad blocks, the
>> + * setting range can be acked or unacked. And the setting range may merge,
>> + * overwrite, skip the overlapped already set range, depends on who they are
>> + * overlapped or adjacent, and the acknowledgment type of the ranges. It can be
>> + * more complicated when the setting range covers multiple already set bad block
>> + * ranges, with restrictions of maximum length of each bad range and the bad
>> + * table space limitation.
>> + *
>> + * It is difficult and unnecessary to take care of all the possible situations,
>> + * for setting a large range of bad blocks, we can handle it by dividing the
>> + * large range into smaller ones when encounter overlap, max range length or
>> + * bad table full conditions. Every time only a smaller piece of the bad range
>> + * is handled with a limited number of conditions how it is interacted with
>> + * possible overlapped or adjacent already set bad block ranges. Then the hard
>> + * complicated problem can be much simpler to handle in proper way.
>> + *
>> + * When setting a range of bad blocks to the bad table, the simplified situations
>> + * to be considered are, (The already set bad blocks ranges are naming with
>> + * prefix E, and the setting bad blocks range is naming with prefix S)
>> + *
>> + * 1) A setting range is not overlapped or adjacent to any other already set bad
>> + * block range.
>> + * +--------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +--------+
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * | E1 | | E2 |
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * For this situation if the bad blocks table is not full, just allocate a
>> + * free slot from the bad blocks table to mark the setting range S. The
>> + * result is,
>> + * +-------------+ +--------+ +-------------+
>> + * | E1 | | S | | E2 |
>> + * +-------------+ +--------+ +-------------+
>> + * 2) A setting range starts exactly at a start LBA of an already set bad blocks
>> + * range.
>> + * 2.1) The setting range size < already set range size
>> + * +--------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +--------+
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 2.1.1) If S and E are both acked or unacked range, the setting range S can
>> + * be merged into existing bad range E. The result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 2.1.2) If S is unacked setting and E is acked, the setting will be denied, and
>> + * the result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 2.1.3) If S is acked setting and E is unacked, range S can overwrite on E.
>> + * An extra slot from the bad blocks table will be allocated for S, and head
>> + * of E will move to end of the inserted range S. The result is,
>> + * +--------+----+
>> + * | S | E |
>> + * +--------+----+
>> + * 2.2) The setting range size == already set range size
>> + * 2.2.1) If S and E are both acked or unacked range, the setting range S can
>> + * be merged into existing bad range E. The result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 2.2.2) If S is unacked setting and E is acked, the setting will be denied, and
>> + * the result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 2.2.3) If S is acked setting and E is unacked, range S can overwrite all of
>> + bad blocks range E. The result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 2.3) The setting range size > already set range size
>> + * +-------------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------------+
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * For such situation, the setting range S can be treated as two parts, the
>> + * first part (S1) is as same size as the already set range E, the second
>> + * part (S2) is the rest of setting range.
>> + * +-------------+-----+ +-------------+ +-----+
>> + * | S1 | S2 | | S1 | | S2 |
>> + * +-------------+-----+ ===> +-------------+ +-----+
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * | E | | E |
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * Now we only focus on how to handle the setting range S1 and already set
>> + * range E, which are already explained in 2.2), for the rest S2 it will be
>> + * handled later in next loop.
>> + * 3) A setting range starts before the start LBA of an already set bad blocks
>> + * range.
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * For this situation, the setting range S can be divided into two parts, the
>> + * first (S1) ends at the start LBA of already set range E, the second part
>> + * (S2) starts exactly at a start LBA of the already set range E.
>> + * +----+---------+ +----+ +---------+
>> + * | S1 | S2 | | S1 | | S2 |
>> + * +----+---------+ ===> +----+ +---------+
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * | E | | E |
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * Now only the first part S1 should be handled in this loop, which is in
>> + * similar condition as 1). The rest part S2 has exact same start LBA address
>> + * of the already set range E, they will be handled in next loop in one of
>> + * situations in 2).
>> + * 4) A setting range starts after the start LBA of an already set bad blocks
>> + * range.
>> + * 4.1) If the setting range S exactly matches the tail part of already set bad
>> + * blocks range E, like the following chart shows,
>> + * +---------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +---------+
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 4.1.1) If range S and E have same acknowledge value (both acked or unacked),
>> + * they will be merged into one, the result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 4.1.2) If range E is acked and the setting range S is unacked, the setting
>> + * request of S will be rejected, the result is,
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * 4.1.3) If range E is unacked, and the setting range S is acked, then S may
>> + * overwrite the overlapped range of E, the result is,
>> + * +---+---------+
>> + * | E | S |
>> + * +---+---------+
>> + * 4.2) If the setting range S stays in middle of an already set range E, like
>> + * the following chart shows,
>> + * +----+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +----+
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * 4.2.1) If range S and E have same acknowledge value (both acked or unacked),
>> + * they will be merged into one, the result is,
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * 4.2.2) If range E is acked and the setting range S is unacked, the setting
>> + * request of S will be rejected, the result is also,
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * 4.2.3) If range E is unacked, and the setting range S is acked, then S will
>> + * inserted into middle of E and split previous range E into twp parts (E1
>> + * and E2), the result is,
>> + * +----+----+----+
>> + * | E1 | S | E2 |
>> + * +----+----+----+
>> + * 4.3) If the setting bad blocks range S is overlapped with an already set bad
>> + * blocks range E. The range S starts after the start LBA of range E, and
>> + * ends after the end LBA of range E, as the following chart shows,
>> + * +-------------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------------+
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------------+
>> + * For this situation the range S can be divided into two parts, the first
>> + * part (S1) ends at end range E, and the second part (S2) has rest range of
>> + * origin S.
>> + * +---------+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
>> + * | S1 | S2 | | S1 | | S2 |
>> + * +---------+---------+ ===> +---------+ +---------+
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * | E | | E |
>> + * +-------------+ +-------------+
>> + * Now in this loop the setting range S1 and already set range E can be
>> + * handled as the situations 4), the rest range S2 will be handled in next
>> + * loop and ignored in this loop.
>> + * 5) A setting bad blocks range S is adjacent to one or more already set bad
>> + * blocks range(s), and they are all acked or unacked range.
>> + * 5.1) Front merge: If the already set bad blocks range E is before setting
>> + * range S and they are adjacent,
>> + * +------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +------+
>> + * +-------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------+
>> + * 5.1.1) When total size of range S and E <= BB_MAX_LEN, and their acknowledge
>> + * values are same, the setting range S can front merges into range E. The
>> + * result is,
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * 5.1.2) Otherwise these two ranges cannot merge, just insert the setting
>> + * range S right after already set range E into the bad blocks table. The
>> + * result is,
>> + * +--------+------+
>> + * | E | S |
>> + * +--------+------+
>
> When I read here at the first time, I thought why there is not behind
> merge. After reading
> the following comments, it should be the 6.3, right?
Range E is for existed bad block range, and S is for inserting bad block range. So such situation is not handled by behind merge part.
>
>> + * 6) Special cases which above conditions cannot handle
>> + * 6.1) Multiple already set ranges may merge into less ones in a full bad table
>> + * +-------------------------------------------------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +-------------------------------------------------------+
>> + * |<----- BB_MAX_LEN ----->|
>> + * +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
>> + * | E1 | | E2 | | E3 |
>> + * +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
>> + * In the above example, when the bad blocks table is full, inserting the
>> + * first part of setting range S will fail because no more available slot
>> + * can be allocated from bad blocks table. In this situation a proper
>> + * setting method should be go though all the setting bad blocks range and
>> + * look for chance to merge already set ranges into less ones. When there
>> + * is available slot from bad blocks table, re-try again to handle more
>> + * setting bad blocks ranges as many as possible.
>> + * +------------------------+
>> + * | S3 |
>> + * +------------------------+
>> + * |<----- BB_MAX_LEN ----->|
>> + * +-----+-----+-----+---+-----+--+
>> + * | S1 | S2 |
>> + * +-----+-----+-----+---+-----+--+
>> + * The above chart shows although the first part (S3) cannot be inserted due
>> + * to no-space in bad blocks table, but the following E1, E2 and E3 ranges
>> + * can be merged with rest part of S into less range S1 and S2. Now there is
>> + * 1 free slot in bad blocks table.
>> + * +------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+-----+--+
>> + * | S3 | S1 | S2 |
>> + * +------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+-----+--+
>> + * Since the bad blocks table is not full anymore, re-try again for the
>> + * origin setting range S. Now the setting range S3 can be inserted into the
>> + * bad blocks table with previous freed slot from multiple ranges merge.
>> + * 6.2) Front merge after overwrite
>> + * In the following example, in bad blocks table, E1 is an acked bad blocks
>> + * range and E2 is an unacked bad blocks range, therefore they are not able
>> + * to merge into a larger range. The setting bad blocks range S is acked,
>> + * therefore part of E2 can be overwritten by S.
>> + * +--------+
>> + * | S | acknowledged
>> + * +--------+ S: 1
>> + * +-------+-------------+ E1: 1
>> + * | E1 | E2 | E2: 0
>> + * +-------+-------------+
>> + * With previous simplified routines, after overwriting part of E2 with S,
>> + * the bad blocks table should be (E3 is remaining part of E2 which is not
>> + * overwritten by S),
>> + * acknowledged
>> + * +-------+--------+----+ S: 1
>> + * | E1 | S | E3 | E1: 1
>> + * +-------+--------+----+ E3: 0
>> + * The above result is correct but not perfect. Range E1 and S in the bad
>> + * blocks table are all acked, merging them into a larger one range may
>> + * occupy less bad blocks table space and make badblocks_check() faster.
>> + * Therefore in such situation, after overwriting range S, the previous range
>> + * E1 should be checked for possible front combination. Then the ideal
>> + * result can be,
>> + * +----------------+----+ acknowledged
>> + * | E1 | E3 | E1: 1
>> + * +----------------+----+ E3: 0
>> + * 6.3) Behind merge: If the already set bad blocks range E is behind the setting
>> + * range S and they are adjacent. Normally we don't need to care about this
>> + * because front merge handles this while going though range S from head to
>> + * tail, except for the tail part of range S. When the setting range S are
>> + * fully handled, all the above simplified routine doesn't check whether the
>> + * tail LBA of range S is adjacent to the next already set range and not able
>> + * to them if they are mergeable.
> to merge them
Will update it in next version. Thanks.
>
>> + * +------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +------+
>> + * +-------+
>> + * | E |
>> + * +-------+
>> + * For the above special situation, when the setting range S are all handled
>> + * and the loop ends, an extra check is necessary for whether next already
>> + * set range E is right after S and mergeable.
>
> It's the codes in the update_sectors, right? It checks the p[prev] and p[prev+1]
Yes, it is the code block after the following comment,
/* Check whether the following already set range can be merged */
Like what combine_front() does, it tries to merge the ranges in bad blocks table into less ones, to avoid potential no-space issue in next time _badblocks_set() is called.
>
>> + * 6.2.1) When total size of range E and S <= BB_MAX_LEN, and their acknowledge
> 6.3.1
>
>> + * values are same, the setting range S can behind merges into range E. The
>> + * result is,
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * | S |
>> + * +--------------+
>> + * 6.2.2) Otherwise these two ranges cannot merge, just insert the setting range
> 6.3.2
They will be updated in next version. Thanks.
>
>> + * S in front of the already set range E in the bad blocks table. The result
>> + * is,
>> + * +------+-------+
>> + * | S | E |
>> + * +------+-------+
>> + *
>> + * All the above 5 simplified situations and 3 special cases may cover 99%+ of
>> + * the bad block range setting conditions. Maybe there is some rare corner case
>> + * is not considered and optimized, it won't hurt if badblocks_set() fails due
>> + * to no space, or some ranges are not merged to save bad blocks table space.
>> + *
>> + * Inside badblocks_set() each loop starts by jumping to re_insert label, every
>> + * time for the new loop prev_badblocks() is called to find an already set range
>> + * which starts before or at current setting range. Since the setting bad blocks
>> + * range is handled from head to tail, most of the cases it is unnecessary to do
>> + * the binary search inside prev_badblocks(), it is possible to provide a hint
>> + * to prev_badblocks() for a fast path, then the expensive binary search can be
>> + * avoided. In my test with the hint to prev_badblocks(), except for the first
>> + * loop, all rested calls to prev_badblocks() can go into the fast path and
>> + * return correct bad blocks table index immediately.
>> + */
>> +
>> /*
>> * Find the range starts at-or-before 's' from bad table. The search
>> * starts from index 'hint' and stops at index 'hint_end' from the bad
>> @@ -392,6 +708,230 @@ static int insert_at(struct badblocks *bb, int at, struct badblocks_context *bad
>> return len;
>> }
>>
>> +static void badblocks_update_acked(struct badblocks *bb)
>> +{
>> + bool unacked = false;
>> + u64 *p = bb->page;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!bb->unacked_exist)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < bb->count ; i++) {
>> + if (!BB_ACK(p[i])) {
>> + unacked = true;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!unacked)
>> + bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Do exact work to set bad block range into the bad block table */
>> +static int _badblocks_set(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors,
>> + int acknowledged)
>> +{
>> + int retried = 0, space_desired = 0;
>> + int orig_len, len = 0, added = 0;
>> + struct badblocks_context bad;
>> + int prev = -1, hint = -1;
>> + sector_t orig_start;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int rv = 0;
>> + u64 *p;
>> +
>> + if (bb->shift < 0)
>> + /* badblocks are disabled */
>> + return 1;
>> +
>> + if (sectors == 0)
>> + /* Invalid sectors number */
>> + return 1;
>> +
>> + if (bb->shift) {
>> + /* round the start down, and the end up */
>> + sector_t next = s + sectors;
>> +
>> + rounddown(s, bb->shift);
>> + roundup(next, bb->shift);
>> + sectors = next - s;
>> + }
>> +
>> + write_seqlock_irqsave(&bb->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + orig_start = s;
>> + orig_len = sectors;
>> + bad.ack = acknowledged;
>> + p = bb->page;
>> +
>> +re_insert:
>> + bad.start = s;
>> + bad.len = sectors;
>> + len = 0;
>> +
>> + if (badblocks_empty(bb)) {
>> + len = insert_at(bb, 0, &bad);
>> + bb->count++;
>> + added++;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + prev = prev_badblocks(bb, &bad, hint);
>> +
>> + /* start before all badblocks */
>> + if (prev < 0) {
>> + if (!badblocks_full(bb)) {
>> + /* insert on the first */
>> + if (bad.len > (BB_OFFSET(p[0]) - bad.start))
>> + bad.len = BB_OFFSET(p[0]) - bad.start;
>> + len = insert_at(bb, 0, &bad);
>> + bb->count++;
>> + added++;
>> + hint = 0;
> Does it need to set prev to 0 here? It's -1 now. In update_sectors, it
> checks p[-1] and p[0].
> I guess it should check p[0] and [1].
Nice catch! I’d like to add a check (prev >= 0) after update_sectors, if there is potential merge, it can be handled by combine_front() in next loop.
>
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* No sapce, try to merge */
>> + if (overlap_behind(bb, &bad, 0)) {
>> + if (can_merge_behind(bb, &bad, 0)) {
>> + len = behind_merge(bb, &bad, 0);
>> + added++;
>> + } else {
>> + len = min_t(sector_t,
>> + BB_OFFSET(p[0]) - s, sectors);
>
> It doesn't need to check min_t here. sectors must be >= (BB_OFFSET(p[0] - s))
Yes, it can be simplified.
>
>> + space_desired = 1;
>> + }
>> + hint = 0;
>
> prev=0?
I will add a check for prev < 0 after update_sectors label.
>
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* no table space and give up */
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* in case p[prev-1] can be merged with p[prev] */
>> + if (can_combine_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> + front_combine(bb, prev);
>> + bb->count--;
>> + added++;
>> + hint = prev;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> + if (can_merge_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> + len = front_merge(bb, prev, &bad);
>> + added++;
>> + } else {
>> + int extra = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!can_front_overwrite(bb, prev, &bad, &extra)) {
>> + len = min_t(sector_t,
>> + BB_END(p[prev]) - s, sectors);
>> + hint = prev;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + len = front_overwrite(bb, prev, &bad, extra);
>> + added++;
>> + bb->count += extra;
>> +
>> + if (can_combine_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> + front_combine(bb, prev);
>> + bb->count--;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + hint = prev;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (can_merge_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> + len = front_merge(bb, prev, &bad);
>> + added++;
>> + hint = prev;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>
> When I'm here. I have a confused question. Why we need front_combine?
> It looks like
> front_merge can do this job too. In front_combine, it needs bad->start
> == BB_OFFSET(p[prev]).
> Why does it need this judgement?
I replied in previous patch. front_combine() is to handle a special condition, and try to merge more bad block ranges from the bad blocks table.
Thanks for your comments. I will post an update version for your further code review.
Coly Li
>> +
>> + /* if no space in table, still try to merge in the covered range */
>> + if (badblocks_full(bb)) {
>> + /* skip the cannot-merge range */
>> + if (((prev + 1) < bb->count) &&
>> + overlap_behind(bb, &bad, prev + 1) &&
>> + ((s + sectors) >= BB_END(p[prev + 1]))) {
>> + len = BB_END(p[prev + 1]) - s;
>> + hint = prev + 1;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* no retry any more */
>> + len = sectors;
>> + space_desired = 1;
>> + hint = -1;
>> + goto update_sectors;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* cannot merge and there is space in bad table */
>> + if ((prev + 1) < bb->count &&
>> + overlap_behind(bb, &bad, prev + 1))
>> + bad.len = min_t(sector_t,
>> + bad.len, BB_OFFSET(p[prev + 1]) - bad.start);
>> +
>> + len = insert_at(bb, prev + 1, &bad);
>> + bb->count++;
>> + added++;
>> + hint = prev + 1;
>> +
>> +update_sectors:
>> + s += len;
>> + sectors -= len;
>> +
>> + if (sectors > 0)
>> + goto re_insert;
>> +
>> + WARN_ON(sectors < 0);
>> +
>> + /* Check whether the following already set range can be merged */
>> + if ((prev + 1) < bb->count &&
>> + BB_END(p[prev]) == BB_OFFSET(p[prev + 1]) &&
>> + (BB_LEN(p[prev]) + BB_LEN(p[prev + 1])) <= BB_MAX_LEN &&
>> + BB_ACK(p[prev]) == BB_ACK(p[prev + 1])) {
>> + p[prev] = BB_MAKE(BB_OFFSET(p[prev]),
>> + BB_LEN(p[prev]) + BB_LEN(p[prev + 1]),
>> + BB_ACK(p[prev]));
>> +
>> + if ((prev + 2) < bb->count)
>> + memmove(p + prev + 1, p + prev + 2,
>> + (bb->count - (prev + 2)) * 8);
>> + bb->count--;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (space_desired && !badblocks_full(bb)) {
>> + s = orig_start;
>> + sectors = orig_len;
>> + space_desired = 0;
>> + if (retried++ < 3)
>> + goto re_insert;
>> + }
>> +
>> +out:
>> + if (added) {
>> + set_changed(bb);
>> +
>> + if (!acknowledged)
>> + bb->unacked_exist = 1;
>> + else
>> + badblocks_update_acked(bb);
>> + }
>> +
>> + write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&bb->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + if (!added)
>> + rv = 1;
>> +
>> + return rv;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * badblocks_check() - check a given range for bad sectors
>> * @bb: the badblocks structure that holds all badblock information
>> @@ -501,26 +1041,6 @@ int badblocks_check(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors,
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(badblocks_check);
>>
>> -static void badblocks_update_acked(struct badblocks *bb)
>> -{
>> - u64 *p = bb->page;
>> - int i;
>> - bool unacked = false;
>> -
>> - if (!bb->unacked_exist)
>> - return;
>> -
>> - for (i = 0; i < bb->count ; i++) {
>> - if (!BB_ACK(p[i])) {
>> - unacked = true;
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (!unacked)
>> - bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> -}
>> -
>> /**
>> * badblocks_set() - Add a range of bad blocks to the table.
>> * @bb: the badblocks structure that holds all badblock information
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>
