> On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> On 19/08/2019 15:10, Song Liu wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> If we merge this with the MD_BROKEN patch, would the code look simpler?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Song
>>
>
> Hi Song, I don't believe it changes the complexity/"appearance" of the
> code. Both patches are "relatives" in the ideas' realm, but their code
> is different in nature. My goal in splitting them was to make more
> bisect-able changes.
>
> But feel free to merge them in a single patch or let me know if you
> prefer that way and I can do it.
>
> There's also a chance I haven't understood your statement/question
> correctly heh - if that's the case, please clarify me!
I was thinking, if we can set MD_BROKEN when the device fails, we can
just test MD_BROKEN in array_state_show() (instead of iterating through
all devices).
Would this work?
Thanks,
Song
