On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > But it's a weird inconsistency isn't it, and fixing it up in fsck should > be the right thing to do anyway? Oh, I agree, but basically, as a result I'm going to put this patch on hold until we do a bit more testing. I'm just not ready to push this out on the maint branch just yet..... (The general rule is that I want to keep the maint branch in a state where someone who wants to take a snapshot for a production environment should feel generally comfortable to do this --- modulo rollout/integration testing, of course. I'll keep it on an es/fsck-int-node-fixup branch to make sure we don't lose it, but it's something where I want to add some additional testing before I'm comfortable rolling it out to the maint branch, just to make sure it doesn't trigger any regression.) BTW, while I was experimenting with test cases I found another related bug (but not a regression) where e2fsck isn't able to fix up a specific fs corruption (see attached). It's unlikely to happen in real life, but given how easily I was able to create something that e2fsck can't fix, it's clear we were missing some synthetic test cases. - Ted
Attachment:
bad-extent-no-fix.img.gz
Description: Binary data
