From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Song Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] md raid0/linear: Introduce new array state 'broken' Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 18:57:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1725F15D-7CA2-4B8D-949A-4D8078D53AA9@fb.com> References: <20190816134059.29751-1-gpiccoli@canonical.com> <1f16110b-b798-806f-638b-57bbbedfea49@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1f16110b-b798-806f-638b-57bbbedfea49@canonical.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <551F59B2A4275A44AFBDA837E62AB277@namprd15.prod.outlook.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , Song Liu , NeilBrown , linux-raid , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , Jay Vosburgh List-Id: linux-raid.ids > On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > > On 19/08/2019 15:10, Song Liu wrote: >> [...] >> >> If we merge this with the MD_BROKEN patch, would the code look simpler? >> >> Thanks, >> Song >> > > Hi Song, I don't believe it changes the complexity/"appearance" of the > code. Both patches are "relatives" in the ideas' realm, but their code > is different in nature. My goal in splitting them was to make more > bisect-able changes. > > But feel free to merge them in a single patch or let me know if you > prefer that way and I can do it. > > There's also a chance I haven't understood your statement/question > correctly heh - if that's the case, please clarify me! I was thinking, if we can set MD_BROKEN when the device fails, we can just test MD_BROKEN in array_state_show() (instead of iterating through all devices). Would this work? Thanks, Song