Re: fr1-2.16 patch for 2.6.10 kernel

denis bonnenfant <[email protected]> wrote:
> > :-). The aim here is to try the next disk after a read failure.

> So why not rename map() with with a new read_next() function, for 

Renaming it is a good idea! "Map" was always a silly name. "Remap",
perhaps!

> example that do exactly what we want, and get rid of map() ? It may be 
> less confusing and simpler to maintain. Or coding this directly in 
> raid1d in place of read_balance call ?

Well, that was what I suggested - put back the map function call (I
don't care what its name actually is) with its (the map function's)
shiny patched "read_next" semantics.

But another approach would be to leave the read_balance call but subtly
sabotage the stats so that it chooses the disk we want next :-).
Unmaintainable, I would guess.

Peter