On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:43:47AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > This means there was an existing directory block that was completely full and > could not have the checksum added. It isn't harmful, the chance of having > silent corruption in this specific block is very small. Was this a freshly created ext4 file system with the metadata_csum checksum, or was this a previously existing ext4 file system where the metadata_csum feature was added later? I've pushed an update to the e2fsprogs repository which allows htree and "ls -c" to actually show us the directory leaf block checksums. Previously, they were hidden, which means that it's hard to tell whether a directory had all of its directory blocks properly checksummed or not. > The message itself should be quieted though, since there isn't anything to be > helped by printing it continuously. I guess there is something missing in > e2fsck that it doesn't add a checksum to this block, however. Either that, or somehow there is a case where the directory tail containing the checksum is getting overwritten, or a directory block isn't getting a checksum after a htree node split. The e2fsprogs changes will hopefully make it easier for us to figure out what is going on. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
