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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68F1C3B185 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D058208C4 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=synology.com header.i=@synology.com header.b="rtqRp3zv" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727029AbgBJJMu (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 04:12:50 -0500 Received: from mail.synology.com ([211.23.38.101]:49016 "EHLO synology.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726961AbgBJJMu (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 04:12:50 -0500 Received: from _ (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by synology.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BC63CDB1819F; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:12:48 +0800 (CST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synology.com; s=123; t=1581325968; bh=kRz7zuzDH6uzUhVHJjrFqNDa3Nh/zMl7jU+W4GFZUsg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=rtqRp3zvqbusKE/PKJ+82sv9NQ0Rd7zDGHOH0LNcc1HFznZ77NqpNfskjPdsGwOst 1x7s7zDVo8FXfY1LLSnVh6ul3p5ctBudy3TK7GZHJMSslI9CBBquLqLyNbvW9YaHar GwxGZfYXLtd05Vy2MwTTS2fbF0LnQeCRm5QoQAhc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:12:48 +0800 From: ethanwu To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: backref, only collect file extent items matching backref offset In-Reply-To: <0badf0be-d481-10fb-c23d-1b69b985e145@toxicpanda.com> References: <20200207093818.23710-1-ethanwu@synology.com> <20200207093818.23710-2-ethanwu@synology.com> <0badf0be-d481-10fb-c23d-1b69b985e145@toxicpanda.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: ethanwu@synology.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.2 X-Synology-MCP-Status: no X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=0, required 6, WHITELIST_FROM_ADDRESS 0 X-Synology-Virus-Status: no Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Josef Bacik 於 2020-02-08 00:26 寫到: > On 2/7/20 4:38 AM, ethanwu wrote: >> When resolving one backref of type EXTENT_DATA_REF, we collect all >> references that simply references the EXTENT_ITEM even though >> their (file_pos- file_extent_item::offset) are not the same as the >> btrfs_extent_data_ref::offset we are searching. >> >> This patch add additional check so that we only collect references >> whose >> (file_pos- file_extent_item::offset) == btrfs_extent_data_ref::offset. >> >> Signed-off-by: ethanwu > > I just want to make sure that btrfs/097 passes still right? That's > what the key_for_search thing was about, so I want to make sure we're > not regressing. I assume you've run xfstests but I just want to make > doubly sure we're good here. If you did then you can add > > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik > > Thanks, > > Josef Thanks for reviewing. I've run the btrfs part of xfstests, 097 passed. Failed at following tests: 074 (failed 2 out of 5 runs), 139, 153, 154, 197, 198(Patches related to these 2 tests seem to be not merged yet?) 201, 202 My kernel environment is 5.5-rc5, and this branch doesn't contain fixes for tests 201 and 202. All these failing tests also failed at the same version without my patch. Thanks, ethanwu