On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:44:18PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > The extent tree of the test fs is like the following: > > BTRFS info (device (null)): leaf 16327509003777336587 total ptrs 1 free > space 3919 > item 0 key (4096 168 4096) itemoff 3944 itemsize 51 > extent refs 1 gen 1 flags 2 > tree block key (68719476736 0 0) level 1 > ^^^^^^^ > ref#0: tree block backref root 5 > > And it's using an empty tree for fs tree, so there is no way that its > level can be 1. > > For REAL (created by mkfs) fs tree backref with no skinny metadata, the > result should look like: > > item 3 key (30408704 EXTENT_ITEM 4096) itemoff 3845 itemsize 51 > refs 1 gen 4 flags TREE_BLOCK > tree block key (256 INODE_ITEM 0) level 0 > ^^^^^^^ > tree block backref root 5 > > Fix the level to 0, so it won't break later tree level checker. > > Fixes: faa2dbf004e8 ("Btrfs: add sanity tests for new qgroup accounting code") > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
So this is just a bug in the self-tests and does not have any other impact, right? -- 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