From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F67C6FA82 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229765AbiILN5Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:57:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49184 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229565AbiILN5X (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:57:23 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A7151A816; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 06:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 88B5A68AFE; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:57:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:57:19 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Josef Bacik Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chris Mason , David Sterba , Damien Le Moal , Naohiro Aota , Johannes Thumshirn , Qu Wenruo , Jens Axboe , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/17] btrfs: handle checksum validation and repair at the storage layer Message-ID: <20220912135719.GB723@lst.de> References: <20220901074216.1849941-1-hch@lst.de> <20220901074216.1849941-5-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 02:15:22PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Additionally this is sort of massive, I would prefer if you added the > functionality, removing the various calls to the old io failure rec > stuff, and then had a follow up patch to remove the old io failure code. Hmm. To do that I'd have to add a new temporary member to btrfs_bio to signal that the low-level repair code should be used. If that is ok with the maintainers I can give it a try.