At Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:58:24 +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:44:29PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi at lab.ntt.co.jp> > > > > Current sheepdog allows the condition of a number of zones < a number > > of copies. But "dog vdi check" cannot handle the case well because it > > tries to create copies of lost/corrupted objects based on > > inode->nr_copies. > > > > This patch lets "dog vdi check" create a minimum number of copies and > > zones. > > > > Reported-by: Marcin Mirosław <marcin at mejor.pl> > > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi at lab.ntt.co.jp> > > --- > > > > v2: renameing, zones_nr -> sd_zones_nr > > > > dog/vdi.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/dog/vdi.c b/dog/vdi.c > > index 8fd4664..4847350 100644 > > --- a/dog/vdi.c > > +++ b/dog/vdi.c > > @@ -1800,11 +1800,11 @@ static void vdi_check_object_main(struct work *work) > > } > > > > static void queue_vdi_check_work(const struct sd_inode *inode, uint64_t oid, > > - uint64_t *done, struct work_queue *wq) > > + uint64_t *done, struct work_queue *wq, > > + int nr_copies) > > { > > struct vdi_check_info *info; > > const struct sd_vnode *tgt_vnodes[SD_MAX_COPIES]; > > - int nr_copies = inode->nr_copies; > > > > info = xzalloc(sizeof(*info) + sizeof(info->vcw[0]) * nr_copies); > > info->oid = oid; > > @@ -1830,6 +1830,7 @@ struct check_arg { > > const struct sd_inode *inode; > > uint64_t *done; > > struct work_queue *wq; > > + int nr_copies; > > }; > > > > static void check_cb(void *data, enum btree_node_type type, void *arg) > > @@ -1844,7 +1845,8 @@ static void check_cb(void *data, enum btree_node_type type, void *arg) > > oid = vid_to_data_oid(ext->vdi_id, ext->idx); > > *(carg->done) = (uint64_t)ext->idx * SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE; > > vdi_show_progress(*(carg->done), carg->inode->vdi_size); > > - queue_vdi_check_work(carg->inode, oid, NULL, carg->wq); > > + queue_vdi_check_work(carg->inode, oid, NULL, carg->wq, > > + carg->nr_copies); > > } > > } > > } > > @@ -1855,8 +1857,9 @@ int do_vdi_check(const struct sd_inode *inode) > > uint64_t done = 0, oid; > > uint32_t vid; > > struct work_queue *wq; > > + int nr_copies = min((int)inode->nr_copies, sd_zones_nr); > > > > - if (sd_nodes_nr < inode->nr_copies) { > > + if (sd_nodes_nr < nr_copies) { > > I think we should check (sd_zones_nr < nr_copies) here The comparison is already done in the above min(). Why should we check it here? Thanks, Hitoshi |