On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:44:18PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The extent tree of the test fs is like the following:
>
> BTRFS info (device (null)): leaf 16327509003777336587 total ptrs 1 free space 3919
> item 0 key (4096 168 4096) itemoff 3944 itemsize 51
> extent refs 1 gen 1 flags 2
> tree block key (68719476736 0 0) level 1
> ^^^^^^^
> ref#0: tree block backref root 5
>
> And it's using an empty tree for fs tree, so there is no way that its
> level can be 1.
>
> For REAL (created by mkfs) fs tree backref with no skinny metadata, the
> result should look like:
>
> item 3 key (30408704 EXTENT_ITEM 4096) itemoff 3845 itemsize 51
> refs 1 gen 4 flags TREE_BLOCK
> tree block key (256 INODE_ITEM 0) level 0
> ^^^^^^^
> tree block backref root 5
>
> Fix the level to 0, so it won't break later tree level checker.
>
> Fixes: faa2dbf004e8 ("Btrfs: add sanity tests for new qgroup accounting code")
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
So this is just a bug in the self-tests and does not have any other
impact, right?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
