From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA24169AD2; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 07:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756194933; cv=none; b=GyzYPtNF9a47eS6aRLklFGIv2Wjtolgt0Lr0jpABt8VXLbC8qEW6is/VJbVjKtQeplv4T2nRrw6el5eJQnM4RaY8PG862TA6N0A7r+sunMwDklgrq8mqjrlL374YFLW4yvZaO1xn6oCZOBcYWn7J5ghG+oDwY/TXL5a3f25Sehc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756194933; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wfH1zH+sABESaIWh2dvk/IeWsPFgh6tp9Y1Duo70drs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DZaXAVfIdMpq2EEOOS9EdzKJ5CqyE2x3gYZgs7A6qTIBGcwD83eKc84//GUN+RIF2125JJg+3TN4F6hyVR8WAU0CvqAqo08wtn9BFhZY8gSOxtGk1IwHsByHM2PD30MhEK+073RZ1n2Zl0xBoYCzjsqilfhEvCB5oQ+125q0i/Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=nz+YHcC+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="nz+YHcC+" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=OFoUcJOT21t+LiEq9ePVMnuYiFxBXStxMKl6ABraIBo=; b=nz+YHcC+Vl2lnCa4c73qZhoEK3 lDnDPSFMGnMHYMX1K3G9yCmEccEMeONVhb9m4TcowdXlBW7vWQ9GoTe4kqQ6FbGR+M/gSJ7oWe/sa 8S1r4TOG4ifF18tY8eZwuxq6eY3G8+3ekklyONkES3faD11saDaLzjp6+R3sOtbU+X1T4BW/nD8SI nm1fhwwfAsaAwMyGwsZpSpnYy97UoxtiunCMkehZX46LA0jQt5+DaH+bei38On9dr3OG/AGBpZHsD PC99gjRKIxAhs4+ZhUPjBsL+6XA+C+hS8m0gkOzzMYjHj+b63bGd8J4g9noSk48JEs3aLz7XyU8AX k5AMdo+g==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uqoWf-0000000Auyt-1T3g; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 07:55:29 +0000 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:55:29 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Yu Kuai Cc: Christoph Hellwig , colyli@kernel.org, hare@suse.de, tieren@fnnas.com, axboe@kernel.dk, tj@kernel.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, song@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, neil@brown.name, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, johnny.chenyi@huawei.com, "yukuai (C)" , John Garry Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/7] md/raid10: convert read/write to use bio_submit_split() Message-ID: References: <20250825093700.3731633-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <20250825093700.3731633-5-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <6c6b183a-bce7-b01c-8749-6e0b5a078384@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6c6b183a-bce7-b01c-8749-6e0b5a078384@huaweicloud.com> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 09:13:41AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote: > > The NULL return should only happen for REQ_NOWAIT here, so maybe > > give R10BIO_Returned a more descriptive name? Also please document > > the flag in the header. > > And also atomic write here, if bio has to split due to badblocks here. > The flag is refer to raid1. I can add cocument for both raid1 and raid10 > in this case. Umm, that's actually a red flag. If a device guarantees atomic behavior it can't just fail it. So I think REQ_ATOMIC should be disallowed for md raid with bad block tracking. >