From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:27615 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753695AbcDAA2V (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:28:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck: Fix a false metadata extent warning To: , References: <1459390774-12424-1-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160331163006.GE6230@twin.jikos.cz> From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <56FDC0A2.1030909@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 08:28:18 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160331163006.GE6230@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Sterba wrote on 2016/03/31 18:30 +0200: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:19:34AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> At least 2 user from mail list reported btrfsck reported false alert of >> "bad metadata [XXXX,YYYY) crossing stripe boundary". >> >> While the reported number are all inside the same 64K boundary. >> After some check, all the false alert have the same bytenr feature, >> which can be divided by stripe size (64K). >> >> The result seems to be initial 'max_size' can be 0, causing 'start' + >> 'max_size' - 1, to cross the stripe boundary. >> >> Fix it by always update extent_record->cross_stripe when the >> extent_record is updated, to avoid temporary false alert to be reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo > > Applied, thanks. > > Do you have a test image for that? > > Unfortunately, no. Although I figured out the cause the the false alert, I still didn't find a image/method to reproduce it, except the images of reporters. I can dig a little further trying to make a image. Thanks, Qu