md:Rewrite the md_write_start().
PATCH 2/2 md:Rewrite the md_write_start().
Remove the judgement "bio_data_dir(bi) != WRITE" in md_write_start().Put it before call md_write_start.
--- drivers/md/md.c | 4 +--- drivers/md/md.h | 2 +- drivers/md/raid1.c | 4 ++-- drivers/md/raid10.c | 3 ++- drivers/md/raid5.c | 3 ++- 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
drivers/md/md.c +1 -3
@@ -7198,11 +7198,9 @@ void md_done_sync(struct mddev *mddev, int blocks, int ok)* in superblock) before writing, schedule a superblock update * and wait for it to complete. */ -void md_write_start (struct mddev *mddev,struct bio *bi) +void md_write_start (struct mddev *mddev) {int did_change =0 ; -if (bio_data_dir (bi) !=WRITE ) -return ;BUG_ON (mddev->ro ==1 );if (mddev->ro ==2 ) {
drivers/md/md.h +1 -1
@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ extern struct md_thread *md_register_thread(extern void md_unregister_thread (struct md_thread **threadp);extern void md_wakeup_thread (struct md_thread *thread);extern void md_check_recovery (struct mddev *mddev); -extern void md_write_start (struct mddev *mddev,struct bio *bi); +extern void md_write_start (struct mddev *mddev);extern void md_write_end (struct mddev *mddev);extern void md_done_sync (struct mddev *mddev,int blocks,int ok);extern void md_error (struct mddev *mddev,struct md_rdev *rdev);
drivers/md/raid1.c +2 -2
@@ -893,8 +893,8 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio * bio)* thread has put up a bar for new requests. * Continue immediately if no resync is active currently. */ - -md_write_start (mddev, bio);/* wait on superblock update early */ +if (rw ==WRITE ) +md_write_start (mddev);/* wait on superblock update early */ if (bio_data_dir(bio) == WRITE && bio->bi_sector + bio->bi_size/512 > mddev->suspend_lo &&
drivers/md/raid10.c +2 -1
@@ -1098,7 +1098,8 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio * bio)return ; } -md_write_start (mddev, bio); +if (rw ==WRITE ) +md_write_start (mddev);/* * Register the new request and wait if the reconstruction
drivers/md/raid5.c +2 -1
@@ -3983,7 +3983,8 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio * bi) chunk_aligned_read(mddev,bi))return ; -md_write_start (mddev, bi); +if (rw ==WRITE ) +md_write_start (mddev); logical_sector = bi->bi_sector & ~((sector_t )STRIPE_SECTORS -1 ); last_sector = bi->bi_sector + (bi->bi_size>>9 );
Signature · 6 lines
1.7.5.4 -------------- majianpeng
Quoted 11 lines · majianpeng
Remove the judgement "
bio_data_dir(bi)!= WRITE" in md_write_start().Put it before callmd_write_start.Signed-off-by majianpeng <[email protected]>---
drivers/md/md.c | 4 +---
drivers/md/md.h | 2 +-
drivers/md/raid1.c | 4 ++--
drivers/md/raid10.c | 3 ++-
drivers/md/raid5.c | 3 ++-5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
If the deletions had outnumbered the insertions then maybe, but I think just like kfree() allowing NULL pointers it's cleaner if the caller need not worry.
--
Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 13 lines · Dan Williams
Quoted 11 lines · majianpeng
Remove the judgement "
bio_data_dir(bi)!= WRITE" in md_write_start().Put it before callmd_write_start.Signed-off-by majianpeng <[email protected]>---
?drivers/md/md.c ? ? | ? ?4 +--- ?drivers/md/md.h ? ? | ? ?2 +- ?drivers/md/raid1.c ?| ? ?4 ++-- ?drivers/md/raid10.c | ? ?3 ++- ?drivers/md/raid5.c ?| ? ?3 ++-?5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Quoted 6 lines
If the deletions had outnumbered the insertions then maybe, but I think just like
kfree()allowing NULL pointers it's cleaner if the caller need not worry.--
Dan
The patch had a anthor reason: first check,if read so not call function. Call function takes long time than check statment.
Quoted 14 lines · On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:03:57 +0800 majianpeng <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 13 lines · Dan Williams
Quoted 11 lines · majianpeng
Remove the judgement "
bio_data_dir(bi)!= WRITE" in md_write_start().Put it before callmd_write_start.Signed-off-by majianpeng <[email protected]>---
?drivers/md/md.c ? ? | ? ?4 +--- ?drivers/md/md.h ? ? | ? ?2 +- ?drivers/md/raid1.c ?| ? ?4 ++-- ?drivers/md/raid10.c | ? ?3 ++- ?drivers/md/raid5.c ?| ? ?3 ++-?5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
If the deletions had outnumbered the insertions then maybe, but I think just like
kfree()allowing NULL pointers it's cleaner if the caller need not worry.--
DanThe patch had a anthor reason: first check,if read so not call function. Call function takes long time than check statment.
This is micro-optimisation that really isn't worth spending any time on.
NeilBrown