Re: [PATCH -next v3 6/7] md: factor out a helper rdev_addable() from remove_and_add_spares()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道:
Hi,

在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>

There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
                !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
  }

+static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
+{
+       if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
+           test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
+               return false;
+
+       if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&

Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's define the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that meaning. In
this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().

Does this make sense?

Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array.

There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if
they have common conditions.

Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to
factor out a common helper for them to use.

In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means
if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be
added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this?

Thanks,
Kuai

Thanks,
Kuai


Thanks,
Song


+           !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
+             !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
+               return false;
+
+       return true;
+}
+
  static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
                                  struct md_rdev *this)
  {
@@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
                         continue;
                 if (rdev_is_spare(rdev))
                         spares++;
-               if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
+               if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
                         continue;
-               if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
-                       continue;
-               if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
-                       continue;
-               if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
-                       if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
-                           !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
-                             !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
-                               continue;
-
+               if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
                         rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
-               }
                 if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
                         /* failure here is OK */
                         sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
--
2.39.2

.


.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux