On 2018年03月28日 23:32, David Sterba wrote:
> 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?Yep, until we're implementing level check for backref (and all other tree block reader) Thanks, Qu > -- > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
