Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next v3 6/7] md: factor out a helper rdev_addable() from remove_and_add_spares() | From | Yu Kuai <> | Date | Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:04:47 +0800 |
| |
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@huaweicloud.com> wrote: >>> >>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >>> >>> 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@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> 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 >>> >> . >> > > . >
| |