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 <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks. Do you have a test image for that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
