From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: extent-tree: Check if the newly reserved tree block is already in use
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:28:53 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d7b535f-5466-3a6b-7a04-99e88b75f0fc@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1ca2ca79-0f76-2ac7-b4b6-5266338a053f@gmx.com>
On 17.07.2018 11:24, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> And it's causing problem for certain test cases.
> Please ignore this (at least for now).
>
> But on the other hand, we indeed have a lot of reports on corrupted
> extent tree, it's possible to hit some corrupted extent tree (Su is
> already exhausted by the corrupted tree reported by Marc)
>
> So I'm not completely fine with current extent tree error handling.
> I'll try to find some balance in next version.
I agree we need a better OVERALL error handling/detection. Your
tree-checker work IMO is a step in the right direction. What I want is
to prevent ad-hoc checks being sprinkled in the code. Sorry, but that's
not fine. The thing with working on a lot of corruption reports is the
fact each one of them is looked at in isolation so it produces isolated
fixes. Whereas if a step back is taken and the overall error
handling/detection is considered it might turn out a whole class of
corruption could be detected by a single change, otherwise checks upon
checks will be added which just add technical debt.
Considering this, I'm more in favor of extending the tree-checker to be
the central place where errors are detected (of course this is easier
said than done).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-17 7:46 [PATCH] btrfs: extent-tree: Check if the newly reserved tree block is already in use Qu Wenruo
2018-07-17 8:01 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-17 8:11 ` Su Yue
2018-07-17 8:24 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-17 8:28 ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2018-07-17 8:33 ` Qu Wenruo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3d7b535f-5466-3a6b-7a04-99e88b75f0fc@suse.com \
--to=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).