On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 04:30:28PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: >On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:41:21PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >>On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:42:01PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: >>> The extent_end will be used to check whether there is gap between this >>> extent and next extent. If it is not calibrated, check_file_extent will >> >>Do you mean 'synchronized' or 'matching'. > >I apologize for this incomprehensible commit message, and I have updated >the commit message. > >[PATCH] btrfs-progs: lowmem: fix false alert about the existence of gaps in >the check_file_extent > >> >>> mistake that there are gaps between the remaining extents. >> >>If this is a bugfix, do you have a testcase? Thanks. >> > >The testcase requires some check repair's fixes (including originl and lowmem) >that my colleagues are working on. After they get it, I will send the >testcase. > >The attached is the image which can trigger the false alert.
Sorry, I miss the attached. -- Thanks, Lu > >Without the patch mentioned before, lowmem check will false alert that expect >the hole extent [257 EXTENT_DATA 8192]. > >ERROR: root 5 EXTENT_DATA[257 12288] gap exists, expected: EXTENT_DATA[257 >8192] > >-- >Thanks, >Lu > >
file_extent_with_gap.img
Description: Binary data
