On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:52:49PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > The test 001-bad-file-extent-bytenr fails with this patch (and passes > otherwise). Can you please have a look?
First check expectedly finds problems and fails, then repair is supposed to fix it, but the final check still finds problems because of the enhancements you've added: # output from the final check: checking extents invalid nr_items: 0 Errors found in extent allocation tree or chunk allocation checking free space cache checking fs roots root 5 inode 257 errors 1000, some csum missing Checking filesystem on .../001-bad-file-extent-bytenr/default_case.img.restored UUID: 17442351-31aa-45fa-9503-90fd48874c3e cache and super generation don't match, space cache will be invalidated found 1081346 bytes used err is 1 total csum bytes: 1024 total tree bytes: 24576 total fs tree bytes: 4096 total extent tree bytes: 4096 btree space waste bytes: 16507 file data blocks allocated: 1310720 referenced 1310720 btrfs-progs v4.0.1-2-gb7cf7c5c181d failed: .../btrfs check .../001-bad-file-extent-bytenr/default_case.img.restored It's "invalid nr_items: 0", while in the unpatched test there's Device extent[1, 29360128, 8388608] didn't find the relative chunk. Device extent[1, 1111490560, 1073741824] didn't find the relative chunk. Dev extent's total-byte(2185232384) is not equal to byte-used(1103101952) in dev[1, 216, 1] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
