On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 09:15:44PM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:18:26 +0100
> David Sterba wrote:
>
> > That's just the comment copied, the changelog does not explain why
> > it's ok to do just the run_xor there. It does not seem trivial to me.
> >
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:22:36 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> If the data a rerecovered, why is -EIO still returned?
In the other places in the file where the code appears, the submitted
patch is all that is required to do the xor. I think we also need to
include the following line:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> The patch adds the xor function after the P stripe
> has failed, without bad data or the Q stripe.
That's just the comment copied, the changelog does not explain why it's
ok to do just the run_xor there. It does not seem trivial
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:18:26 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> That's just the comment copied, the changelog does not explain why
> it's ok to do just the run_xor there. It does not seem trivial to me.
> Please describe that the end result after the code change is expected.
In the
The patch adds the xor function after the P stripe
has failed, without bad data or the Q stripe.
Signed-off-by: Sanidhya Solanki
---
fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
index