Hi,
在 2025/05/09 19:20, Xiao Ni 写道:
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 6:26 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
在 2025/05/09 18:20, Xiao Ni 写道:
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 6:08 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
在 2025/05/09 17:33, Xiao Ni 写道:
The two places clear MD_CLOSING rather than setting MD_CLOSING.
MD_CLOSING is set when we really want to stop the array (STOP_ARRAY
cmd and clear>array_state_store). So the two places clear MD_CLOSING
for other situations which look good to me.
No, MD_CLOSING can be set first in the two cases, do something and then
be cleared, that's why I said temporarily.
So you mean mddev_get should pass in this case (between setting
MD_CLOSING and clearing MD_CLOSING)? It doesn't allow get mddev now
without this patch. This should be right.
I don't understand what you mean "It doesn't allow get mddev now without
this patch", for example, the ioctl STOP_ARRAY_RO will set MD_CLOSING
temporarily, but never set MD_DELETED, mddev_get() can always pass.
You're right. I thought of the md_open path and it checks MD_CLOSING.
There is a short window that will fail to open sysfs files. I want to
make things easier and clearer here: it can't get mddev when
MD_CLOSING is set. Is there any problem if we use this rule?
What I can think of is that during the window, user can't access this
array through sysfs or /proc/mdstat after this patch. We'd better not
introduce new restrictions for user, unless we're 100% sure they won't
be affected.
Thanks,
Kuai
Regards
Xiao
Thanks,
Kuai
Regardes
Xiao
Thanks,
Kuai
.
.
