On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:55:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 10-09-20 16:48:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted
This case isn't ever used.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <redacted>
Are you sure it's never used? As far as I'm reading drdb code the contents
of the disk_conf structure seems to be received through netlink (that code
is really a macro hell) and so read_balancing attribute passed to
remote_due_to_read_balancing() can have any value userspace passed to it.
You are right, looking at how disk_conf is used I can't convince myself
that it is indeed not set through netlink and I've thus dropped the
patch.