| Message ID | 1da6c61af04c10b8a7e682676121e1031753fe69.1636143924.git.josef@toxicpanda.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs-progs: extent tree v2 global root support prep work | expand |
On 2021/11/6 04:28, Josef Bacik wrote: > btrfs_mark_used_tree_blocks skips the reloc roots for some reason, which > causes problems because these blocks are in use, and we use this helper > to determine if the block accounting is correct with extent tree v2. Any idea on why it's skipped in the first place? Thanks, Qu > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > --- > common/repair.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/common/repair.c b/common/repair.c > index 79519140..413c3e86 100644 > --- a/common/repair.c > +++ b/common/repair.c > @@ -87,10 +87,6 @@ static int traverse_tree_blocks(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(eb, &key, i); > if (key.type != BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY) > continue; > - /* Skip the extent root and reloc roots */ > - if (key.objectid == BTRFS_TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID || > - key.objectid == BTRFS_DATA_RELOC_TREE_OBJECTID) > - continue; > is_extent_root = > key.objectid == BTRFS_EXTENT_TREE_OBJECTID; > /* If pin, skip the extent root */ >
On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 08:39:23AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2021/11/6 04:28, Josef Bacik wrote: > > btrfs_mark_used_tree_blocks skips the reloc roots for some reason, which > > causes problems because these blocks are in use, and we use this helper > > to determine if the block accounting is correct with extent tree v2. > > Any idea on why it's skipped in the first place? > Yeah I added it apparently in 439ce45e ("Btrfs-progs: add --init-extent-tree to btrfsck") because at the time we didn't deal with the reloc tree properly and I was trying to unfuck a users file system. I'm going to say that isn't the case anymore. Thanks, Josef
On 2021/11/9 03:14, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 08:39:23AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2021/11/6 04:28, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> btrfs_mark_used_tree_blocks skips the reloc roots for some reason, which >>> causes problems because these blocks are in use, and we use this helper >>> to determine if the block accounting is correct with extent tree v2. >> >> Any idea on why it's skipped in the first place? >> > > Yeah I added it apparently in > > 439ce45e ("Btrfs-progs: add --init-extent-tree to btrfsck") > > because at the time we didn't deal with the reloc tree properly and I was trying > to unfuck a users file system. I'm going to say that isn't the case anymore. > Thanks, > > Josef > Then the patch looks fine to me. Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Thanks, Qu
diff --git a/common/repair.c b/common/repair.c index 79519140..413c3e86 100644 --- a/common/repair.c +++ b/common/repair.c @@ -87,10 +87,6 @@ static int traverse_tree_blocks(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(eb, &key, i); if (key.type != BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY) continue; - /* Skip the extent root and reloc roots */ - if (key.objectid == BTRFS_TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID || - key.objectid == BTRFS_DATA_RELOC_TREE_OBJECTID) - continue; is_extent_root = key.objectid == BTRFS_EXTENT_TREE_OBJECTID; /* If pin, skip the extent root */
btrfs_mark_used_tree_blocks skips the reloc roots for some reason, which causes problems because these blocks are in use, and we use this helper to determine if the block accounting is correct with extent tree v2. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> --- common/repair.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)