Yes I did use seek= I attach the new dump-tree - it seems very short compared to the last one you requested ???
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Qu Wenruo [mailto:quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com] Sent: 29 April 2018 10:36 To: David C. Partridge; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problems with btrfs On 2018年04月29日 17:20, David C. Partridge wrote: > Here is the result of btrfs check after applying the patch Doesn't work as expected. Did you apply the patched tree block with "seek="? If so, please dump extent tree again to verify if the modification is done correct. # btrfs inspect dump-tree -t extent <device> Thanks, Qu > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Qu Wenruo [mailto:quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com] > Sent: 29 April 2018 09:36 > To: David C. Partridge > Subject: Re: Problems with btrfs > > Here is the patched binary tree block. > > You could apply them by the following command (copy1 and copy2 are the same). > > # dd if=copy1.img of=<device> bs=1 count=16K seek=25942081536 # dd > if=copy1.img of=<device> bs=1 count=16K seek=26478952448 > > And after that, try btrfs check to see if it reports new error. > > Thanks, > Qu > > On 2018年04月29日 16:24, David C. Partridge wrote: >> Attached as requested >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org >> [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Qu Wenruo >> Sent: 29 April 2018 03:08 >> To: David C. Partridge; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: Problems with btrfs >> >> >> >> On 2018年04月29日 09:55, David C. Partridge wrote: >>> Not a problem >>> >>> See attached >> >> The final binary dump: >> >> # dd if=<device> of=/tmp/copy1.img bs=1 count=16K skip=25942081536 # >> dd if=<device> of=/tmp/copy2.img bs=1 count=16K skip=26478952448 >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >>
btrfs-dump-tree1.log
Description: Binary data
