From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid5: fix incorrectly counter of conf->empty_inactive_list_nr Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 08:44:03 +1000 Message-ID: <87bn19pj64.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: liuzhengyuan Cc: shli , liuzhengyuang521 , linux-raid , linux-kernel List-Id: linux-raid.ids --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Aug 03 2016, liuzhengyuan wrote: > Thanks for you replay. > I think it may be on the temp inactive list. An active sh was handled > and put to temp inactive list firstly, then moved to inactive list. > If sh is on the temp inactive list, sh->count is zero too. Hmmm... yes, you are probably right. Thanks, NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXonOzAAoJEDnsnt1WYoG5Ab0P/R3JHjdT37LVOTuU4OM9k/tj 9/Y/LQhcG6P0wACEEE6TGs0oSNIKOiq3P9TZY8xLs8RamU/h4LsSIGszPeMjOvSj g/COwxWn51+JoAjbfscb6QKfuGchy1ojg6oMAYVuZKD//0Krj5WGBvDl2n3607Bw HUNNVOrMx0K0lQ4qwXF3GiE8vgPdkCkxbYSoXux1FsUdAx8ImE7m6z1t1kKAkHSU Qm8aAqu7x5kS1axrxRRUFg/LfRTo+/PwOZCC321rEBd4AAhT284LToRLJ8l/Kxfk 5MV09P1p2ltMpqP75rzQlFJldVBUV/104mMhcN+NgxgH4VQOAZyHN25cVNA4fIkK j95YwyEhUrNgdMAXlyL+XibsZIjidtdl0v+1Fdl1oQNCk6rzkjHQbaeNvnxfS5Hw /9O/Ld952s57zjUemDAF4EKhYsiBGw36dQc8T3rcUGEIuEiYJEXUFVDi3hnsGhUM PUuLroRtKy3S0BgmrXKepeH9soJgjH6OWqi3+Y0u7EPV374aZPxgg8V7dUC5SHGa 7C3zmMyxvnu+KUmYiZ/SJ35WoR6XYFI2jioq11PcDNWn6fh9SAgDDGYyV1wDpJWw g+VDCDgkZYuHnKyK2DmDDqhuCZvBlvV0w26oyYk1Hjo/KKQSILyJeq6zFR8TZrpx EArGHUfOs+ZTq4YlwTry =swVt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--