From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Andrea Mazzoleni <amadvance@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, clm@fb.com, jbacik@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] lib: raid: New RAID library supporting up to six parities
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:33:57 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140107113357.3bd67ad0@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140106094523.GA4602@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1924 bytes --]
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:45:23 +0100 Andrea Mazzoleni <amadvance@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. In the meantime I went further in developing and
> I've just sent version 2 of the patch, that contains a preliminary btrfs
> modification to use the new interface.
>
> Please use this one for any kind of review because it contains a modification
> of the interface to match better the btrfs use.
> I'll now try to do something similar to the async_tx layer and to improve the
> code documentation as you recommended.
Thanks.
>
> Anyway, a good entry point to understand the code is to start from the
> include/linux/raid/raid.h file. It contains the functions that external
> modules should call with a complete description of them.
>
> There is raid_par() used to compute parity, and raid_rec() to recover damaged
> blocks. These two functions replace all the old xor_blocks and raid6 calls.
>
> And there is the raid_sort() you mention. It's an helper function that can be
> used to ensure that the blocks indexes are passed at the raid interface in
> proper order. In existing code I saw that the indexes are often sorted before
> calling raid6, with something like:
>
> if (faila > failb) {
> int tmp = failb;
> failb = faila;
> faila = tmp;
> }
>
> To do the same with up to six failures, it's now required some kind of sort
> function.
I'm not totally convinced by this, but then I haven't played with the code
so maybe I'm wrong.
I don't see the above as "sorting" faila and failb, but rather determining
which one is first. Once you know which one is first, the remainder follow
in order.
So I would probably just make sure we always process the block is the "right"
order. Then sorting would be irrelevant.
But as I say, I haven't fiddled with the code, so maybe that would end up
being more complex.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-07 0:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-03 9:47 [RFC] lib: raid: New RAID library supporting up to six parities Andrea Mazzoleni
2014-01-06 0:15 ` NeilBrown
2014-01-06 9:45 ` Andrea Mazzoleni
2014-01-07 0:33 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2014-01-07 10:07 ` Andrea Mazzoleni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140107113357.3bd67ad0@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=amadvance@gmail.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).