@@ -6325,15 +6325,28 @@ static int run_next_block(struct btrfs_root *root,
int level;
level = btrfs_header_level(buf);
- for (i = 0; i < nritems; i++) {
+ i = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * If we have a drop key we need to not walk down any slots we
+ * would have ignored when mounting the fs. These blocks are
+ * technically unreferenced and don't need to be worried about.
+ */
+ if (ri != NULL && ri->drop_level && level > ri->drop_level) {
+ ret = btrfs_bin_search(buf, &ri->drop_key, level, &i);
+ if (ret && i > 0)
+ i--;
+ }
+
+ for (; i < nritems; i++) {
struct extent_record tmpl;
ptr = btrfs_node_blockptr(buf, i);
size = root->fs_info->nodesize;
btrfs_node_key_to_cpu(buf, &key, i);
if (ri != NULL) {
- if ((level == ri->drop_level)
- && is_dropped_key(&key, &ri->drop_key)) {
+ if ((level == ri->drop_level) &&
+ is_dropped_key(&key, &ri->drop_key)) {
continue;
}
}
@@ -638,8 +638,8 @@ static int generic_bin_search(struct extent_buffer *eb, unsigned long p,
* simple bin_search frontend that does the right thing for
* leaves vs nodes
*/
-static int bin_search(struct extent_buffer *eb, const struct btrfs_key *key,
- int level, int *slot)
+int btrfs_bin_search(struct extent_buffer *eb, const struct btrfs_key *key,
+ int level, int *slot)
{
if (level == 0)
return generic_bin_search(eb,
@@ -1172,7 +1172,7 @@ again:
ret = check_block(root, p, level);
if (ret)
return -1;
- ret = bin_search(b, key, level, &slot);
+ ret = btrfs_bin_search(b, key, level, &slot);
if (level != 0) {
if (ret && slot > 0)
slot -= 1;
@@ -2616,6 +2616,8 @@ int btrfs_search_slot_for_read(struct btrfs_root *root,
const struct btrfs_key *key,
struct btrfs_path *p, int find_higher,
int return_any);
+int btrfs_bin_search(struct extent_buffer *eb, const struct btrfs_key *key,
+ int level, int *slot);
int btrfs_find_item(struct btrfs_root *fs_root, struct btrfs_path *found_path,
u64 iobjectid, u64 ioff, u8 key_type,
struct btrfs_key *found_key);
While testing snapshot deletion with dm-log-writes I saw that I was failing the fsck sometimes when the fs was actually in the correct state. This is because we only skip blocks on the same level of root_item->drop_level. If the drop_level < the root level then we could very well walk into nodes that we wouldn't actually walk into on fs mount, because the drop_progress is further ahead in the slot of the root. Instead only process the slots of the nodes that are above the drop_progress key. With this patch in place we no longer improperly fail to check fs'es that have a drop_progress set with a drop_level < root level. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> --- check/main.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- ctree.c | 6 +++--- ctree.h | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)