From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] md raid0/linear: Introduce new array state 'broken' Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:11:19 -0300 Message-ID: <4c95f76c-dfbc-150c-2950-d34521d1e39d@canonical.com> References: <20190816134059.29751-1-gpiccoli@canonical.com> <1f16110b-b798-806f-638b-57bbbedfea49@canonical.com> <1725F15D-7CA2-4B8D-949A-4D8078D53AA9@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1725F15D-7CA2-4B8D-949A-4D8078D53AA9@fb.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Song Liu Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , Song Liu , NeilBrown , linux-raid , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , Jay Vosburgh List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 19/08/2019 15:57, Song Liu wrote: >[...] > > 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 > This could work, but will require some refactors; it'll simplify the check for a healthy array (no need for is_missing_dev() function) but will complicate the criteria to clear MD_BROKEN and the detection of more members failing (we would stop the detection after the 1st failure if we only test MD_BROKEN). We will always need to test the GENHD_FL_UP in some code path, to be able to show users device recovered from a failure. Where do you suggest to test this flag? Thanks, Guilherme