Re: [PATCH V6 0/3] md: call del_gendisk in sync way

[Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>]

Hi,

在 2025/06/15 11:21, Xiao Ni 写道:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 4:18 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2025/06/11 15:31, Xiao Ni 写道:
>>> Now del_gendisk is called in a queue work which has a small window
>>> that mdadm --stop command exits but the device node still exists.
>>> It causes trouble in regression tests. This patch set tries to resolve
>>> this problem.
>>>
>>> v1: replace MD_DELETED with MD_CLOSING
>>> v2: keep MD_CLOSING
>>> v3: call den_gendisk in mddev_unlock, and remove ->to_remove in stop path
>>> and adjust the order of patches
>>> v4: only remove the codes in stop path.
>>> v5: remove sysfs_remove in md_kobj_release and change EBUSY with ENODEV
>>> v6: don't initialize ret and add reviewed-by tag
>>>
>>> Xiao Ni (3):
>>>     md: call del_gendisk in control path
>>>     md: Don't clear MD_CLOSING until mddev is freed
>>>     md: remove/add redundancy group only in level change
>>>
>>>    drivers/md/md.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>>    drivers/md/md.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>    2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Just running mdadm tests with loop dev in my VM, and found this set can
>> cause many tests to fail, the first is 02r5grow:
>>
>> ++ /usr/sbin/mdadm -A /dev/md0 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop3
>> ++ rv=1
>> ++ case $* in
>> ++ cat /var/tmp/stderr
>> mdadm: Unable to initialize sysfs
>> ++ return 1
>> ++ check state UUU
>> ++ case $1 in
>> ++ grep -sq 'blocks.*\[UUU\]$' /proc/mdstat
>> ++ die 'state UUU not found!'
>> ++ echo -e '\n\tERROR: state UUU not found! \n'
>>
>>       ERROR: state UUU not found!
>>
>> ++ save_log fail
>>
>> I do not look into details yet.
>> Thanks
>>
> 
> Hi Kuai
> 
> You need to use the latest upstream mdadm code
> https://github.com/md-raid-utilities/mdadm/
> 

I use the repo from:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git

With the latest commit:
8da27191 ("mdadm: enable sync file for udev rules")

Do we not update mdadm here?

I'll run the test soon, and BTW, wahy in the above commit, test can
pass before this set?

Thanks,
Kuai