RE: [PATCH 1/2] imsm:FIX: change arrays reshape order

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-raid-
owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kwolek, Adam
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:30 AM
To: NeilBrown
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org; Williams, Dan J; Ciechanowski, Ed;
Neubauer, Wojciech
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] imsm:FIX: change arrays reshape order

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: NeilBrown [mailto:neilb@suse.de]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Kwolek, Adam
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org; Williams, Dan J; Ciechanowski, Ed;
Neubauer, Wojciech
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] imsm:FIX: change arrays reshape order

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:59:22 +0100 Adam Kwolek

[off-list ref]

quoted

wrote:

quoted

Reshape is started from second array, so it causes imsm

incompatibility

quoted

and problems during second array start.

Reshape should be started in arrays metadata order.

Signed-off-by: Adam Kwolek <redacted>
---

 super-intel.c |    9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
index f578057..8484df6 100644
--- a/super-intel.c
+++ b/super-intel.c

@@ -5848,6 +5848,7 @@ static int

apply_reshape_container_disks_update(struct imsm_update_reshape *u,

quoted

 	int devices_to_reshape = 1;
 	struct imsm_super *mpb = super->anchor;
 	int ret_val = 0;
+	unsigned int dev_id;

 	dprintf("imsm: imsm_process_update() for update_reshape\n");

@@ -5877,11 +5878,17 @@ static int

apply_reshape_container_disks_update(struct imsm_update_reshape *u,

quoted

 		" mpb->num_raid_devs = %i\n", mpb->num_raid_devs);
 	/* manage changes in volume
 	 */
-	for (id = super->devlist ; id; id = id->next) {
+	for (dev_id = 0; dev_id < mpb->num_raid_devs; dev_id++) {
 		void **sp = *space_list;
 		struct imsm_dev *newdev;
 		struct imsm_map *newmap, *oldmap;

+		for (id = super->devlist ; id; id = id->next) {
+			if (id->index == dev_id)
+				break;
+		}

Could you replace that loop with a call to get_imsm_dev please?

Otherwise, this look good.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

In a while ;)
BR
Adam

I think we should leave this patch as I've proposed. I need to work not on imsm_dev but on intel_dev.
intel_dev is required for memory re-linking.
If I use there get_imsm_dev() I have to work on 2 pointers set, and keep them in sync. This can introduce more noise in to code.
Than 'for' loop you want to remove.

Summarizing if I use get_imsm_dev(), I cannot remove this loop (it is required for memory management purposes,
few lines below: id->dev = newdev, I need reference to correct intel_dev).

BR
Adam

quoted

quoted

+		if (id == NULL)
+			break;
 		if (!sp)
 			continue;
 		*space_list = *sp;

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html