From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Molle Bestefich Subject: Re: [PATCH md ] Better handling of readerrors with raid5. Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:15:29 +0000 Message-ID: <62b0912f050920171550edcab1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050916125754.11044.patches@notabene> <1050916030157.11071@suse.de> Reply-To: molle.bestefich@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1050916030157.11071@suse.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids NeilBrown wrote: > TESTERS WANTED!! SEE BELOW... > > This patch changes the behaviour of raid5 when it gets a read error. > Instead of just failing the device, it tried to find out what should > have been there, and writes it over the bad block. Jip-hee! Beautiful!! Neil, a big, warm and fuzzy Thank You for all the hard work you put into MD! I do not have a test system, so I've tried to apply the patch to a smallish (6 disk ata) live system instead. (Am I sane?) Some of the disks have probably developed a couple of bad blocks here and there by now. I imagine doing a 'dd' from the MD device will read at least 83% of all sectors (?), so there's a fair chance I'll hit something if it's there. Applying the patch doesn't quite work for me: ============================================== linux-2.6.13.2 # patch --dry-run -p0 < md-rewrite-bad-blocks.patch patching file ./drivers/md/raid5.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 339 (offset -10 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 963 (offset -20 lines). Hunk #4 FAILED at 983. Hunk #5 succeeded at 1044 (offset -2 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 1274 (offset -32 lines). 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file ./drivers/md/raid5.c.rej patching file ./include/linux/raid/raid5.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 153 (offset -1 lines). ============================================== Hunk #4 succeds if given a fuzz of 3... Is it safe to use the patch with 2.6.13.2?