On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:09:25PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:07:35PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > @@ -2166,11 +2166,21 @@ int raid56_parity_recover(struct btrfs_fs_info > > > *fs_info, struct bio *bio, > > > } > > > > > > /* > > > - * reconstruct from the q stripe if they are > > > - * asking for mirror 3 > > > + * Loop retry: > > > + * for 'mirror == 2', reconstruct from all other stripes. > > > > What about using macro to makes the reassemble method more human readable? > > Yeah, that's definetelly needed and should be based on > BTRFS_MAX_MIRRORS, not just hardcoded to 3.
OK. In case of raid5/6, BTRFS_MAX_MIRRORS is an abused name, it's more a raid1/10 concept, either BTRFS_RAID56_FULL_REBUILD or BTRFS_RAID56_FULL_CHK is better to me, which one do you guys like? Thanks, -liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
