Re: Linux-next regression?

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

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1716 bytes --]



On 2018/11/27 下午10:11, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:13:02AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018/11/26 下午11:01, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
>>>   One question: I can completely trust the ok return status of scrub? I know is made for this, but shit happens...
>>
>> No, scrub only checks csum of data and tree blocks, it doesn't ensure
>> the content of tree blocks are OK.
> 
> Hi Qu,
>   and thanks a lot, really. Your answers are always the best: short,
>   detailed and very kind. You rock.
> 
>   I'm going to send a patch to propose to add your explanation above
>   on the relative man page, if you agree.
> 
>> For comprehensive check, go "btrfs check --readonly".
> 
>   I'll do it.
> 
>   At the moment I just compared the file existance between my laptop and
>   latest backup. Everything is fine.
> 
>>
>> However I don't think it's something "btrfs check --readonly" would
>> report, but some strange behavior, maybe from LVM or cryptsetup.
> 
>   Well, I'm using this setup with ext4 and xfs, on same machine, without
>   troubles.

Then it indeed looks like something goes wrong in linux-next.

I would recommend to do a bisect if possible.

As you compared all your data with laptop, it ensures your csum/file
trees are OK, thus no corruption in that trees.
But still something doesn't look right for extent tree only.

But it's less a concerning problem since it doesn't reach latest RC, so
if you could reproduce it stably, I'd recommend to do a bisect.

Thanks,
Qu

>   I've got files checksummed on the backup machine, so I can be sure about
>   comparing integrity.
> 
> Anyway, thanks a lot again,
> Andrea
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]