On Mon, Mar 27 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:53:25AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>
>> I had the same concern when I looked at this patch firstly. The number for
>> raid1/10 doesn't need to be the same. But if we don't move the number to a
>> generic header, the third
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:53:25AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> I had the same concern when I looked at this patch firstly. The number for
> raid1/10 doesn't need to be the same. But if we don't move the number to a
> generic header, the third patch will become a little more complicated. I
>
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:57:37PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17 2017, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> > Both raid1 and raid10 share common resync
> > block size and page count, so move them into md.h.
>
> I don't think this is necessary.
> These are just "magic" numbers. They don't have any
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:57 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17 2017, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> Both raid1 and raid10 share common resync
>> block size and page count, so move them into md.h.
>
> I don't think this is necessary.
> These are just "magic" numbers. They don't have any
On Fri, Mar 17 2017, Ming Lei wrote:
> Both raid1 and raid10 share common resync
> block size and page count, so move them into md.h.
I don't think this is necessary.
These are just "magic" numbers. They don't have any real
meaning and so don't belong in md.h, or and .h file.
Possibly we