[PATCH] md: fix innocuous bug in raid6 stripe_to_pdidx
stripe_to_pdidx finds the index of the parity disk for a given stripe. It
assumes raid5 in that it uses "disks-1" to determine the number of data disks.
This is incorrect for raid6 but fortunately the two usages cancel each other
out. The only way that 'data_disks' affects the calculation of pd_idx in
raid5_compute_sector is when it is divided into the sector number. But as
that sector number is calculated by multiplying in the wrong value of
'data_disks' the division produces the right value.
So it is innocuous but needs to be fixed.
Also change the calculation of raid_disks in compute_blocknr to make it
more obviously correct (it seems at first to always use disks-1 too).
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
index 2e676e3..d855f9f 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -823,7 +823,8 @@
static sector_t compute_blocknr(struct stripe_head *sh, int i)
{
raid5_conf_t *conf = sh->raid_conf;
- int raid_disks = sh->disks, data_disks = raid_disks - 1;
+ int raid_disks = sh->disks;
+ int data_disks = raid_disks - conf->max_degraded;
sector_t new_sector = sh->sector, check;
int sectors_per_chunk = conf->chunk_size >> 9;
sector_t stripe;
@@ -859,7 +860,6 @@
}
break;
case 6:
- data_disks = raid_disks - 2;
if (i == raid6_next_disk(sh->pd_idx, raid_disks))
return 0; /* It is the Q disk */
switch (conf->algorithm) {
@@ -1355,8 +1355,10 @@
int pd_idx, dd_idx;
int chunk_offset = sector_div(stripe, sectors_per_chunk);
- raid5_compute_sector(stripe*(disks-1)*sectors_per_chunk
- + chunk_offset, disks, disks-1, &dd_idx, &pd_idx, conf);
+ raid5_compute_sector(stripe * (disks - conf->max_degraded)
+ *sectors_per_chunk + chunk_offset,
+ disks, disks - conf->max_degraded,
+ &dd_idx, &pd_idx, conf);
return pd_idx;
}