From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:20931 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756418AbcBQH0u (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:26:50 -0500 Subject: Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk To: =?UTF-8?Q?=c3=81ngel_Gonz=c3=a1lez?= , "inux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" References: <1447365063.7045.7.camel@scientia.net> <1455581697.6951.9.camel@fs.16bits.net> <56C27D8F.2000006@cn.fujitsu.com> <1455661288.1700.8.camel@fs.16bits.net> From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <56C420A3.1000508@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:26:27 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1455661288.1700.8.camel@fs.16bits.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ángel González wrote on 2016/02/16 23:21 +0100: > > >>> Which should be my next steps? >>> >> >> Try btrfs-progs 4.4 to see if all these false alert goes a way. >> >> Thanks, >> Qu > > Thanks! > Those "errors" are indeed gone after updating btrfs-progs from 4.3.1 to > 4.4. Sorry for the fuss. > > > It's strange though if it was supposed to only happen with non-skinny > metadata, since I didn't manually specify any flags, and supposedly > skinny is the default since 3.18 (the btrfs partition was created with > a newer version). If you're really interesting in whether your fs has skinny metadata enabled, you can check btrfs-show-super output. Like the following output indicates skinny metadata: ------ incompat_flags 0x161 ( MIXED_BACKREF | BIG_METADATA | EXTENDED_IREF | SKINNY_METADATA ) << > > Thanks for your support > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >