Re: Subject: [PATCH] mdadm: raid0: support chunks of 4K*n for raid0

Raz
2009-05-15T15:45:25Z

Well, first, anyone that somehow in someway got confused or insulted
please accept my applogies.
This all thing is just a big missunderstanding, and from my part.
please see inline.
I hope we are ok now Sujit.

On 5/15/09, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 4:45 pm, Sujit Karataparambil wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Raz <raziebe@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> where else ?
> >
> > See you were the one who has sent out the patch. Ok? Then you should
> > know the reason for patch? What I had asked from Neil is an RFC Cross
> > Checking the Patch. So I donot expect an Reply From You. Ok?
> >>> taking care of 4k*n data sets.
> >>> What I see of this patch is that it specifically checks for some sort
> >>> of 4K Boundaries.
> >
> >
> >> instead of 4K*2^n where n>=0
> >> correct and recompure IO posistion.
> >>>> fprintf(stderr, Name ": invalid
> >>>> chunk/rounding value: %s\n",
> >
> > Could you tell me how 4K*2^n is used to do the patch what ever it was
> > sent for? Or
> > is it that the patch is incomplete.
> >
> > Kindly Maintain Some sort of mailing list courtesy.Ok? Reply only when
> > you are asked to.
> > Ok?
>
> That really isn't an appropriate thing to say. If people want to
> reply (politely) this questions directed at other people on a public
> list, I think that is quite appropriate. In fact I value it as it
> often means I don't need to reply because someone else has done
> it for me.
>
> Now I agree that "where else" is not a very helpful reply, but I'm
ok. sorry about that. i just do not understand what the problem.
> not sure that the original question was crystal clear either. Maybe
> there is a bit of a language barrier - I'm sure not everyone on this
> list has English as their first language, yet English is the language
> we use (for which I'm very thankful as I don't speak anything else).
> So a little bit of patience all around would be good.
>
> Also it would help if explanations were a little more detailed, and
> even if questions contained more detail too.
>
> In the case of the original patch, I'm not really sure of the point
> of the patch myself.
>
> The text
> "I do not know what is policy for mdadm patches. I would thankful for some
> instructions."
>
> is clear enough. The answer is "send them to me" in much the same format
> as the kernel patches you have seen sent by e.g. Andre Noll.
> The text
> "The bellow is the patch I applied to support raid0 chunk sizes 4K*n."
>
> confuses me as it doesn't seem add anything, it only removes.
> i.e. it removes the possibility of passing a non-power-of-2
> chunk size to raid levels other than 0.
lol.... patch is my mistake. patch wat not against your original code .
Original mdadm.c code is:
if (!optarg[0] || *c || chunk<4 || ((chunk-1)&chunk)) ...

All I want is to enable the chunk fix only to raid0. This is all my
mistake because i am not working under your mdadm git repository but
under a private svn repository. Would you be so kind to direct me to
your git's url ( there are several mdadm gits i found in google ), I
will repost this fix.

Thank you.
raz
> That might be an appropriate thing to do, but the commentary that
> came with the patch doesn't say it does that, and says something
> quite different, so I'm not really sure what to make of it. Which
> is one of the reasons I didn't reply straight away - I wanted to give
> myself time to read it again and make sure I wasn't missing anything.
>
>
> NeilBrown
>
> >
> > --
> > -- Sujit K M
> >
>
>