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 68DFDC43334 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 19:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229833AbiF2Ti7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:38:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46194 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229635AbiF2Ti6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:38:58 -0400 Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D1317AAE for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA87A320034E; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:38:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bur.io; h=cc:cc :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1656531534; x=1656617934; bh=W9NfRNJeU7 w4VpcPyl8a2lBPBjXjiKfI4jmw/c/Tfbk=; b=hAsWv7kSaqOJzHC5noedH72Le2 DOZrjhxj2rmRLmhmiL+vRlkjPzxzwwykInhnnla5494zBded2YBorVTt4RViLfPC rrwydLbTkricx409LOBsOuQks4Jsmb8tldwl6JOBI9aRiQ1HoEKExtBo+eqQLdZx ip1a3ixp/WgUMLLLvXz+MENwgdXTiDoWLfKXBTbxV9eE2BeSj2spOR5HJrurhZf7 nb8VU44z99yVJJpwYDUHZloXqD7+M/i0FT55XVC32x41L8A6VUnXqjoWGbSjej+G K8lXanyXislzbGUpvZAD1plJU6pIDnSNvbxs5njWMS58ytA/5P1Q2VR4pa1Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1656531534; x=1656617934; bh=W9NfRNJeU7w4VpcPyl8a2lBPBjXj iKfI4jmw/c/Tfbk=; b=nHlq8SFvqy6EBCcLQBTYexOpTflc3GiB6evHiaI2Kkim H44bmg8zUewODO4ZiZP3z9vbP0cp94uEEF0MzgxzYTJtEytShjOj2Gm51W//0b+r VxNNe5eoTCPt2HsGYfXnZcoxB8nghPOloDWxqDXzIsoHc+mMRX5DJriEWJ0p2HB1 7tYmcnxeTmOtT3+neLIyi1aV+ikNiLFInT7bOPDZIWJGt3eYKl5VqRGowwHY+JII bHVX67PoKZcu4fZbFBaxdqxFfQ6GyuG4Kgbdasb/Za+vpVS9anrtZUcuK1ZJZBXz OSWnX33/3xRF76pSwBQpEC1cLvVeIEBfGh2RxFwiow== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudegledgudegtdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeeuohhr ihhsuceuuhhrkhhovhcuoegsohhrihhssegsuhhrrdhioheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epkedvkeffjeellefhveehvdejudfhjedthfdvveeiieeiudfguefgtdejgfefleejnecu vehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepsghorhhish essghurhdrihho X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i083147f8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:38:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:38:51 -0700 From: Boris Burkov To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fix read repair on compressed extents Message-ID: References: <20220623055338.3833616-1-hch@lst.de> <20220629084201.GA25725@lst.de> <20220629190838.GA28224@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220629190838.GA28224@lst.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:08:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:04:41PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote: > > Under that setup, the new btrfs/270 fails on step 4 checking if > > the repair worked (the output looks all random rather than aa's) > > I think that is the first, incorrect version that I posted that > documents the current behavior. The correct test is in my first > reply to it. Ah, I see, thanks. That second test passes for me, and fails on for-next, for what it's worth. Now I'll actually dig in to the patches/tests.