On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 18:30 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > What I suspect happened is that some kind of garbage --- perhaps > simply a single 4k block of 0xFF's --- got written into the inode > table. This would trigger this sort of complaint from e2fsck. Ok, makes sense. It's a USB flash drive, so perhaps it just messed up with its FTL and showed a deleted block in place of the real one. > > Perhaps this is just a consequence of check ordering though - maybe if > > the inode flags get corrupted then the EXTENTS flag is just the first > > one that will be tested in the e2fsck code? > > Yes, this is one of the first things that e2fsck 1.42.x would test > for. Thanks for the confirmation. Thanks, johannes -- 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
