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 1AE0BC6FA83 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 04:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232597AbiIFEeL (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:34:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33900 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231947AbiIFEeK (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:34:10 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A95BA5E564; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 21:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id A35DB68AA6; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 06:34:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 06:34:04 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Qu Wenruo Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , 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: <20220906043404.GA32181@lst.de> References: <20220901074216.1849941-1-hch@lst.de> <20220901074216.1849941-5-hch@lst.de> <20220905064816.GD2092@lst.de> <227328cc-a41c-be15-ab9f-fa81419b7348@gmx.com> <20220905143100.GA5426@lst.de> <7e674801-2f6c-68f6-dcea-527771843587@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7e674801-2f6c-68f6-dcea-527771843587@gmx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:34:40AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> I thought about that. And I suspect it probably is the right thing >> to do. I'm mostly stayed away from it because it doesn't really >> help with the goal in this series, and I also don't have good >> code coverage to fail comfortable touching the metadata checksum >> handling and repair. I can offer this sneaky deal: if someone >> help creating good metadata repair coverage in xfstests, I will look >> into this next. > > Then may I take this work since it's mostly independent and you can > continue your existing work without being distracted? Fine with me as well.