On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:55:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:12:56PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: >> As Qu mentioned in this thread >> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg64469.html), compression >> can cause regular extent to co-exist with inlined extent. This coexistence >> makes things confusing. Since it was permitted currently, so fix >> btrfsck to prevent a bunch of error logs that will make user feel >> panic. >> >> When check file extent, record the extent_end of regular extent to check >> if there is a gap between the regular extents. Normally there is only one >> inlined extent, so the extent_end of inlined extent is useless. However, >> if regular extent can co-exist with inlined extent, the extent_end of >> inlined extent also need to record. >> >> Reported-by: Marc MERLIN <m...@merlins.org> >> Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >Applied, thanks. > >Do you have a test for that?
Yes, I have already posted this testcase (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg66802.html) yesterday. In addition, this patch has an updated version (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg66803.html) which make lowmem mode output more detailed information when file extent interrupt. Since the patch v2 has been applied, then I will send a patch for this modification alone. -- Thanks, Lu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
