On Mon, 19 May 2025, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please ignore the last reply, I misunderstand your commit message, I
> thought you said dm-raid, actually you said mdraid, and it's correct,
> if read_bio faild raid1/10 will set badblocks which is not expected.
>
> Then for reada head IO, I still think don't kill REQ_RAHEAD for
> underlying disks is better, what do you think about skip handling IO
> error for ead ahead IO?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> index 657d481525be..b8b4fead31f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -380,7 +380,10 @@ static void raid1_end_read_request(struct bio *bio)
> /* This was a fail-fast read so we definitely
> * want to retry */
> ;
> - else {
> + else if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_RAHEAD) {
> + /* don't handle readahead error, which can fail at anytime. */
> + uptodate = 1;
> + } else {
> /* If all other devices have failed, we want to return
> * the error upwards rather than fail the last device.
> * Here we redefine "uptodate" to mean "Don't want to retry"
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> index dce06bf65016..4d51aaf3b39b 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -399,6 +399,9 @@ static void raid10_end_read_request(struct bio *bio)
> * wait for the 'master' bio.
> */
> set_bit(R10BIO_Uptodate, &r10_bio->state);
> + } else if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_RAHEAD) {
> + /* don't handle readahead error, which can fail at anytime. */
> + uptodate = 1;
> } else {
> /* If all other devices that store this block have
> * failed, we want to return the error upwards rather
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
I confirm that this patch fixes the test.
Tested-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpato...@redhat.com>
Mikulas
