Paul Clements wrote:
I think bio_clone gives us that already. I may have missed something but
I think we have everything we need:
When a bio comes into raid1's make_request we bio_clone for each drive
and attach those to r1_bio->bios. We also have behind_pages, which
contains the pages. I th
Neil Brown wrote:
sector, bdev, size are all remembered in r1_bio.
That leaves bi_idx and an array od len/offset pairs that we need
to preserve.
So I guess the first step is to change alloc_behind_pages to
return a new 'struct bio_vec' array rather than just a list of pages,
and we should keep
On Thursday August 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> The r1_bio->master_bio may already have had end_io() called and been
> freed by the time we bio_clone() it. This results in an invalid bio
> being sent down to one (or more) of the raid1 components. In my testing,
> the original 4K barrier w
On Friday August 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What can I do?
> a) force with some magic the assemble (maybe --assume-clean could
> help)?
Yes. --assemble --force
NeilBrown
> b) wait for new disk and dd_rescue old /dev/hdg to new /dev/hdg and
> retry?
> c) recreate the raid (I'm scared...)?
Description:
---
When a filesystem sends a barrier write down to raid1, raid1 tries to
pass the write down to its component devices. However, if one or more of
the devices return EOPNOTSUPP, it means that they do not support
barriers, and raid1 must strip the barrier out of the write an
Hello All ,
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, David Greaves wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
write-bits-here-to-dirty-them-in-the-bitmap
is probably (no, definitely) too verbose.
Any better suggestions?
It's not actually a bitmap is it?
It takes a number or range and *operates* on a bitmap.
so:
dirty-c
Paul Clements wrote:
>>Is 16 blocks a large enough area?
>
> Maybe. The superblock will be between 64KB and 128KB from the end of the
> partition. This depends on the size of the partition:
>
> SB_LOC = PART_SIZE - 64K - (PART_SIZE & (64K-1))
>
> So, by 16 blocks, I assume you mean 16 filesy
Neil Brown wrote:
> write-bits-here-to-dirty-them-in-the-bitmap
>
> is probably (no, definitely) too verbose.
> Any better suggestions?
It's not actually a bitmap is it?
It takes a number or range and *operates* on a bitmap.
so:
dirty-chunk-in-bitmap
or maybe:
dirty-bitmap-chunk
David
-
