Re: Re: fr1-2.16 patch for 2.6.10 kernel

Peter T. Breuer a écrit :
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ENBD mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/enbd

Ok, I completed the patch. Now all the code is inside #ifdefs, and 
locking seems ok. It compiles cleanly.
I'm going to test it now.