From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A5524B1B33; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 14:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791211890; cv=none; b=A6K8uUOf2PSCCZ+RgfpF0p2sOeM/SL4IKj92ydVXMCUjM2lx8WFurAZKg0webhuAEeI/iTuCp3R9ZRc+RK00Bdhj4vX4hmQRpjVy6LezdXpaC6NHKvbrGTesxOkLwEAqa/SvllrYOcARL3NOmV8F4IH9/LKD66cFMWxHzabtxiY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791211890; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BKeDf5B5H+IZ06dkXGTwN2MZpk/zo6wusOiubwTetu4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pZ2TsTN5x4mNsDZI+PU93DyzRdgOx34ovEQfDk1CNeiyoLbeWDeaaJHsddtt3RXmh6P+WGcIQKU0dbxY+31fczuerKwSFPGsuTquS56TszwrmElgsvaKpRiAgNmZ9vLteHvEarXCD2mp8JiQY6r8uBAAP6Ysonhjh1iuplK+4Ek= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=WBsWrQv9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="WBsWrQv9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id D523A1F000FF; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 14:51:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791211883; bh=RtBDG755PC1XDdD4Mqc1cS/7gJUqyuZwtGm666ES5S8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=WBsWrQv9/mT/bT2AJK9LFnUelj36HfwOYpQIoOS9ZTM/w/Nws81T+tYIOF2YhAX3g 6y2xaTmi0WTe67tvzclb4PK0muD05cDNr5zcC1VWunw6so3A9aYYh7YLj+0+S289A4 L6VA9hH2zTbJwEg1KGNIF5ablp5Ig66bmF6QxUZO/GKqSMkIIu8oBBpHb49HQq7pW4 +wPmPcWx4XyiUKCvAJ3ZE/R7/WX0Do0bNBnke4akIAZBDryWWm0GiC/f4uFfOc0+Rz aBY09JTojpvHCl2o2qie8+doEDgMbB+SvPRGJgNJqLARgZ4Ar+ZkMld3OjCXwR0eR4 bqtdy3r0DIgbQ== Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 07:51:23 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Zorro Lang , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] xfs/2304: version of generic/388 that run xfs_scrub -x for each iteration Message-ID: <20261005145123.GB2705364@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260924100855.2734089-1-hch@lst.de> <20260924100855.2734089-10-hch@lst.de> <20260929015645.GL2705364@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20261005132522.GN26805@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261005132522.GN26805@lst.de> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 03:25:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 06:56:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > + $XFS_SCRUB_PROG -x $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > > > I think we should just change generic/388 to run xfs_scrub after > > recovery, and add -x if data checksums are enabled? That /would/ have > > the effect of catching recovery errors (or scrub bugs) earlier. > > My idea was to key it off XFS_VERIFY_FILE_DATA. But yes, generic > is probably better if no one screams. > > > Though I wonder how much that reduces the number of loop iterations over > > a given SOAK_DURATION? > > Good question. Maybe adjust that if XFS_VERIFY_FILE_DATA is set? Yes. I'm ok with g388 running more slowly if it'll catch data checksum bugs and whatnot. I'm a little surprised that it doesn't already run _check_filesystems every loop iteration. --D