Copied, thanks for the advice
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2025年8月8日周五 09:27写道：
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2025/08/07 20:57, chen cheng 写道:
> > if (test_bit(WriteErrorSeen, &rdev->flags)) {
> > ...
> > if (is_bad && first_bad <= r1_bio->sector) {
> > bad_sectors -= (r1_bio->sector - first_bad);
> > if (bad_sectors < max_sectors)
> > max_sectors = bad_sectors;
> > rdev_dec_pending(rdev, mddev);
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > ...
> > }
> >
> >
> > When the condition "is_bad && first_bad <= r1_bio->sector" is true,
> > this rdev device will be skipped and will no participate in io, so I
> > think the following code snippet is unnecessary:
> >
> > bad_sectors -= (r1_bio->sector - first_bad);
> > if (bad_sectors < max_sectors)
> > max_sectors = bad_sectors;
> >
> > So I am confused why we need to update max_sectors in this case?
> >
> > .
> >
>
> Becase other good rdevs still have to hanlde this IO, and this IO must
> to be splited to bypass badblock regions.
>
> However, please notice maillist is exclusively for active kernel
> development like patch submit and review, bug reports and discussion.
> It is encouraged to discuss if you understand implemantaion details and
> figure out something is wrong or can be improved, but it is not
> appropriate for implementation specific question like this.
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
