Bug#1028039: Mention "use run e2fsck -f" to fix.
The "extent tree (at level 1) could be narrower" message is overly verbose and raises concerns by end users, even though it is harmless. On the flip side, this may save only a few hundred blocks in the filesystem for a short period of time, so there is little benefit to be had by printing a message. Disable the extent optimization step in e2fsck by default by adding the "no_optimize_extents" option to e2fsck.conf. diff --git a/e2fsck.conf b/e2fsck.conf new file mode 100644 index 0..b774f9ebf --- /dev/null +++ b/e2fsck.conf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +[options] +# disable extent optimization to avoid spurios "errors" during runs +no_optimize_extents=true
Bug#1028039: Mention "use run e2fsck -f" to fix.
Package: e2fsprogs Version: 1.46.6~rc1-1+b1 Please instead of making users nervous by just saying: fsck from util-linux 2.38.1 Inode 65923 extent tree (at level 1) could be shorter. IGNORED. Please simply add "use run e2fsck -f" to fix: Inode 65923 extent tree (at level 1) could be shorter. IGNORED. Use run e2fsck -f" to fix. It works!: # e2fsck -f /dev/mmcblk0p2 e2fsck 1.46.6-rc1 (12-Sep-2022) Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes Inode 65923 extent tree (at level 1) could be shorter. Optimize? yes That way users would know how to avoid getting the warning forever. Also they wouldn't need to do https://www.google.com/search?q=Inode+extent+tree+(at+level+1)+could+be+shorter.+IGNORED. as you see many many have.
