Danny wrote:
> Peter,
>
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
> >
> > "A month of sundays ago Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:"
> > > > Are you using Russell/Martin's md patch?
> > >
> > > Possibly. I'm using a patch Scott (Smyth) sent me, which I presume
> > > incorporates this work -- the patch fixed the problem with the raid5
> > > resync
> > > process wedging when the volume was mounted.
> >
> > doesn't ever have null pointers), and in raid5 it converts
> > raid5_sync_request to using sector counts instead of block counts.
> > That's fine, but in one place it makes an additional change to sector
> > counts in a call to md_done_sync that looks unwarranted to me (in my xfs
> > snapshot) since md_done_sync uses blocks, not sectors:
> >
> > - md_done_sync(conf->mddev, (sh->size>>10) -
> > sh->sync_redone,1);
> > + md_done_sync(conf->mddev, (sh->size>>9) - sh->sync_redone,
> > 1);
> >
> > I'm not using raid5 so I can't comment, but that bit seemed offbase
> > to me when I read the patch.
> >
> > void md_done_sync(mddev_t *mddev, int blocks, int ok)
> > // stuff that subtracts the blocks count from the
> > // to-be-recovered list
>
> Then you don't have the full patch. The patch from Russell/Martin
> changed md.c also to use sectors instead of block in all cases. What
> their patch didn't include was changes to raid1.c, which I stumbled
> across when I first attempted to use it. I've sent a patch to them for
> raid1.c, and also a patch to make the BLKSETSIZE ioctl work, too, but
> I've not heard anything from either of them on it.
Martin has promissed to clean up the patch and get it checked into the main
tree by
the end of the week.
If not I'll make sure it gets there.
>
>
> --
> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
> themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
> -- Winston Churchill
>
> Danny
--
Russell Cattelan
cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
|