From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
---
drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
!test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
}
+static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
+{
+ if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
+ test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
+ return false;
+
+ if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
+ !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
+ !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
struct md_rdev *this)
{
@@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
continue;
if (rdev_is_spare(rdev))
spares++;
- if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
+ if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
continue;
- if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
- continue;
- if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
- continue;
- if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
- if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
- !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
- !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
- continue;
-
+ if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
- }
if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
/* failure here is OK */
sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
--
2.39.2
Hi,
在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>>
>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
>> }
>>
>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>> +{
>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
>
> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's define
> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that meaning. In
> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().
>
> Does this make sense?
Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array.
There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if
they have common conditions.
Thanks,
Kuai
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
>
>> + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
>> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
>> struct md_rdev *this)
>> {
>> @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
>> continue;
>> if (rdev_is_spare(rdev))
>> spares++;
>> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
>> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
>> continue;
>> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
>> - continue;
>> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>> - continue;
>> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
>> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
>> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
>> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
>> - continue;
>> -
>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
>> rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
>> - }
>> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
>> /* failure here is OK */
>> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
> .
>
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>
> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
> }
>
> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> +{
> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's define
the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that meaning. In
this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Song
> + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
> struct md_rdev *this)
> {
> @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
> continue;
> if (rdev_is_spare(rdev))
> spares++;
> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
> continue;
> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
> - continue;
> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> - continue;
> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
> - continue;
> -
> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
> rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
> - }
> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
> /* failure here is OK */
> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
> --
> 2.39.2
>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 8:04 PM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道:
> >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
> >>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
> >>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
> >>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> >>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
> >>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> >>> + return false;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
> >>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
> >>
> >> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
> >> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's
> >> define
> >> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that
> >> meaning. In
> >> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().
> >>
> >> Does this make sense?
> >
> > Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array.
> >
> > There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if
> > they have common conditions.
>
> Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to
> factor out a common helper for them to use.
>
> In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means
> if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be
> added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this?
My main concern is that rdev_addable() is not making the code easier to
understand. We have a few different cases at this point:
1. rdev is not suitable for add (Faulty, raid_disk>=0, Candidate);
2. rdev is Journal;
3. Re-add rdev to RO array;
4. Non-re-add rdev to RO array;
5. Other cases.
Current rdev_addable() handles more or less all of this, which is
confusing. Maybe we can do something along similar to the
following (not tested). Does this look more clear?
Thanks,
Song
diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c
index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644
--- i/drivers/md/md.c
+++ w/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync);
+static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
+{
+ if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
+ test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
+ return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
+static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev)
+{
+ return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 ||
+ !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags);
+}
+
static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
struct md_rdev *this)
{
@@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) {
if (this && this != rdev)
continue;
- if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
- continue;
if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 &&
!test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
!test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
spares++;
- if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
+
+ if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
continue;
- if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
+
+ if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
+ goto hot_add_disk;
+
+ if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && !rdev_is_readd(rdev))
continue;
- if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
- if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
- !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
- !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
- continue;
- rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
- }
+ rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
+
+ hot_add_disk:
if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
/* failure here is OK */
sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
Hi,
在 2023/08/23 13:26, Song Liu 写道:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 8:04 PM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
>>>>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>>>>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>>>>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>>>>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
>>>>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
>>>>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
>>>>
>>>> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
>>>> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's
>>>> define
>>>> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that
>>>> meaning. In
>>>> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>
>>> Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array.
>>>
>>> There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if
>>> they have common conditions.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to
>> factor out a common helper for them to use.
>>
>> In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means
>> if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be
>> added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this?
>
> My main concern is that rdev_addable() is not making the code easier to
> understand. We have a few different cases at this point:
>
> 1. rdev is not suitable for add (Faulty, raid_disk>=0, Candidate);
> 2. rdev is Journal;
> 3. Re-add rdev to RO array;
> 4. Non-re-add rdev to RO array;
> 5. Other cases.
>
> Current rdev_addable() handles more or less all of this, which is
> confusing. Maybe we can do something along similar to the
> following (not tested). Does this look more clear?
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
> diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c
> index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644
> --- i/drivers/md/md.c
> +++ w/drivers/md/md.c
> @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync);
>
> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> +{
> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> + return false;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> +{
> + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 ||
> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags);
This should use '&&' instead of '||' ?
> +}
> +
> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
> struct md_rdev *this)
> {
> @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
> rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) {
> if (this && this != rdev)
> continue;
> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
> - continue;
> if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 &&
> !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> spares++;
> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
> +
> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
> continue;
> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> +
> + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
> + goto hot_add_disk;
> +
I understand what you mean now, but I must use the exact same judgement
in the new helper md_spares_need_change() in patch 7, there will be
redundant code this way.
How about this, rework rdev_addable():
static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
{
+ /* rdev is already used, don't add it again. */
if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
return false;
~ /* Allow to add journal disk. */
~ if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
~_ return true;
~ /* Allow to add if array is read-write. */
+ if (md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev))
+ return true;
+
+ /*
+ * For read-only array, only allow to readd a rdev. And if
bitmap is
+ * used, don't allow to readd a rdev that is too old.
+ */
+ if (rdev->saved_raid_disk >=0 && !test_bit(Bitmap_sync,
&rdev->flags))
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
}
Thanks,
Kuai
> + if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && !rdev_is_readd(rdev))
> continue;
> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
> - continue;
>
> - rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
> - }
> + rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
> +
> + hot_add_disk:
> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
> /* failure here is OK */
> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
> .
>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:37 AM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[...]
> > diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c
> > index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644
> > --- i/drivers/md/md.c
> > +++ w/drivers/md/md.c
> > @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync);
> >
> > +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
> > + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> > + return false;
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 ||
> > + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags);
> This should use '&&' instead of '||' ?
>
> > +}
> > +
> > static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
> > struct md_rdev *this)
> > {
> > @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
> > rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) {
> > if (this && this != rdev)
> > continue;
> > - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
> > - continue;
> > if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 &&
> > !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> > !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
> > !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> > spares++;
> > - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
> > +
> > + if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
> > continue;
> > - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> > +
> > + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
> > + goto hot_add_disk;
> > +
>
> I understand what you mean now, but I must use the exact same judgement
> in the new helper md_spares_need_change() in patch 7, there will be
> redundant code this way.
>
> How about this, rework rdev_addable():
Yeah, this was another option that I was thinking about. Let's go with
this version.
Thanks,
Song
>
> static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
> {
> + /* rdev is already used, don't add it again. */
> if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
> test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> return false;
>
> ~ /* Allow to add journal disk. */
> ~ if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
> ~_ return true;
>
> ~ /* Allow to add if array is read-write. */
> + if (md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev))
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * For read-only array, only allow to readd a rdev. And if
> bitmap is
> + * used, don't allow to readd a rdev that is too old.
> + */
> + if (rdev->saved_raid_disk >=0 && !test_bit(Bitmap_sync,
> &rdev->flags))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
> }
Hi,
在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道:
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and
>>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev)
>>> +{
>>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 ||
>>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) &&
>>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) &&
>>
>> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_*
>> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's
>> define
>> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that
>> meaning. In
>> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable().
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array.
>
> There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if
> they have common conditions.
Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to
factor out a common helper for them to use.
In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means
if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be
added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this?
Thanks,
Kuai
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Song
>>
>>
>>> + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
>>> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + return true;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
>>> struct md_rdev *this)
>>> {
>>> @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev
>>> *mddev,
>>> continue;
>>> if (rdev_is_spare(rdev))
>>> spares++;
>>> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags))
>>> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev))
>>> continue;
>>> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
>>> - continue;
>>> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
>>> - continue;
>>> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) {
>>> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) &&
>>> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 &&
>>> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)))
>>> - continue;
>>> -
>>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags))
>>> rdev->recovery_offset = 0;
>>> - }
>>> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) {
>>> /* failure here is OK */
>>> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
>>> --
>>> 2.39.2
>>>
>> .
>>
>
> .
>