From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f199.google.com (mail-pl1-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5B66B0006 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl1-f199.google.com with SMTP id n5-v6so2385100plp.16 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com. [141.146.126.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g3-v6si35216128pgr.325.2018.11.02.10.42.39 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Nov 2018 10:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:42:29 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/25] vfs: avoid problematic remapping requests into partial EOF block Message-ID: <20181102174229.GA4127@magnolia> References: <153923113649.5546.9840926895953408273.stgit@magnolia> <153923117420.5546.13317703807467393934.stgit@magnolia> <20181015003139.GZ6311@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Filipe Manana Cc: Dave Chinner , Eric Sandeen , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-btrfs , linux-fsdevel , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:04:39PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:31 AM Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:22:18PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:13 AM Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > > > A deduplication data corruption is exposed by fstests generic/505 on > > > > XFS. > > > > > > (and btrfs) > > > > > > Btw, the generic test I wrote was indeed numbered 505, however it was > > > never committed and there's now a generic/505 which has nothing to do > > > with deduplication. > > > So you should update the changelog to avoid confusion. > > > > What test is it now? And if it hasn't been committed, are you going > > to update it and repost as it clearly had value.... > > Sorry, I lost track of this. > > So what was the conclusion of the thread where discussion about this > problem started? > It wasn't clear to me if a consensus was reached and got lost on that > long user space dedupe tools discussion between you and Zygo. > > The test assumed a fix of rounding down the range and deduping less > bytes then requested (which ended up included in 4.19 for btrfs). > > From this vfs patch it seems it was decided to return errno -EDADE instead. > Is this the final decision? No, I reworked the whole mess to match btrfs-4.19 behavior of deduping fewer bytes than requested. --D > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@fromorbit.com > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > > a??Whether you think you can, or you think you can't a?? you're right.a??