On 17.07.2018 11:24, Qu Wenruo wrote: > And it's causing problem for certain test cases. > Please ignore this (at least for now). > > But on the other hand, we indeed have a lot of reports on corrupted > extent tree, it's possible to hit some corrupted extent tree (Su is > already exhausted by the corrupted tree reported by Marc) > > So I'm not completely fine with current extent tree error handling. > I'll try to find some balance in next version. I agree we need a better OVERALL error handling/detection. Your tree-checker work IMO is a step in the right direction. What I want is to prevent ad-hoc checks being sprinkled in the code. Sorry, but that's not fine. The thing with working on a lot of corruption reports is the fact each one of them is looked at in isolation so it produces isolated fixes. Whereas if a step back is taken and the overall error handling/detection is considered it might turn out a whole class of corruption could be detected by a single change, otherwise checks upon checks will be added which just add technical debt. Considering this, I'm more in favor of extending the tree-checker to be the central place where errors are detected (of course this is easier said than done). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
