> From: Neil Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thursday August 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > <Trimming tons of detail, but keeping the thread>
> >
> > OK.... I've reproduced the original issue on a seperate box.
> > 2.6.23-rc3 does not like to grow Raid 5 arrays. MDadm 2.6.3
>
> No, you are right. It doesn't.
>
> Obviously insufficient testing and review - thanks for find it for us.
>
Agreed - seconded.
> This patch seems to make it work - raid5 and raid6.
>
> Dan: Could you check it for me, particularly the moving of
> + async_tx_ack(tx);
> + dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx);
> outside of the loop.
>
Yes, this definitely needs to be outside the loop.
> Greg: could you pleas check it works for you too - it works for me,
> but double-testing never hurts.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> NeilBrown
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Fix some bugs with growing raid5/raid6 arrays.
>
>
>
> ### Diffstat output
> ./drivers/md/raid5.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff .prev/drivers/md/raid5.c ./drivers/md/raid5.c
> --- .prev/drivers/md/raid5.c 2007-08-24 16:36:22.000000000 +1000
> +++ ./drivers/md/raid5.c 2007-08-27 20:50:57.000000000 +1000
> @@ -2541,7 +2541,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(raid
> struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
> clear_bit(STRIPE_EXPAND_SOURCE, &sh->state);
> for (i = 0; i < sh->disks; i++)
> - if (i != sh->pd_idx && (r6s && i != r6s->qd_idx)) {
> + if (i != sh->pd_idx && (!r6s || i != r6s->qd_idx)) {
> int dd_idx, pd_idx, j;
> struct stripe_head *sh2;
>
> @@ -2574,7 +2574,8 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(raid
> set_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &sh2->dev[dd_idx].flags);
> for (j = 0; j < conf->raid_disks; j++)
> if (j != sh2->pd_idx &&
> - (r6s && j != r6s->qd_idx) &&
> + (!r6s || j !=
raid6_next_disk(sh2->pd_idx,
> +
sh2->disks)) &&
> !test_bit(R5_Expanded,
&sh2->dev[j].flags))
> break;
> if (j == conf->raid_disks) {
> @@ -2583,12 +2584,12 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(raid
> }
> release_stripe(sh2);
>
> - /* done submitting copies, wait for them to
complete */
> - if (i + 1 >= sh->disks) {
> - async_tx_ack(tx);
> - dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx);
> - }
> }
> + /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */
> + if (tx) {
> + async_tx_ack(tx);
> + dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx);
> + }
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -2855,7 +2856,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe
> sh->disks = conf->raid_disks;
> sh->pd_idx = stripe_to_pdidx(sh->sector, conf,
> conf->raid_disks);
> - s.locked += handle_write_operations5(sh, 0, 1);
> + s.locked += handle_write_operations5(sh, 1, 1);
How about for clarity:
s.locked += handle_write_operations5(sh, RECONSTRUCT_WRITE, 1);
> } else if (s.expanded &&
> !test_bit(STRIPE_OP_POSTXOR, &sh->ops.pending)) {
> clear_bit(STRIPE_EXPAND_READY, &sh->state);
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
