Re: [PATCH] Revert "btrfs: fix repair of compressed extents" and "btrfs: pass a btrfs_bio to btrfs_repair_one_sector"

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

On 2022/8/13 14:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 02:00:25PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> To fix the problem, we need to revert commit 7aa51232e204 ("btrfs: pass
>> a btrfs_bio to btrfs_repair_one_sector"), but unfortunately later commit
>> 81bd9328ab9f ("btrfs: fix repair of compressed extents") has a
>> dependency on that commit.
>
> Let's try to sort this out properly intead of doing a blind revert before
> -rc1.  I'll cook up a patch to pass an explicit offset ASAP as the quick
> fix, but for the longer run:  is there such a huge benefit of having
> these logically non-contigous bios?  They are so different from the
> I/O stack in any other file systems that I think we'll keep running into
> problems again an again.

OK, I didn't consider the reason why we allow non-contigous page into a bio.

But indeed, if we allow that, it would be a much simpler fix.

Mind me to introduce a patch to add a new page offset contingous check
to the related code path?

Thanks,
Qu