On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:15:56AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > When directory link count is set to overflow value (1) but during pass 4 > we find out the exact link count would fit, we either silently fix this > (which is not great because e2fsck then reports the fs was modified but > output doesn't indicate why in any way), or we report that link count is > wrong and ask whether we should fix it (in case -n option was > specified). The second case is even more misleading because it suggests > non-trivial fs corruption which then gets silently fixed on the next > run. Similarly to how we fix up other non-problems, just create a new > error message for the case directory link count is not overflown anymore > and always report it to clarify what is going on. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> Applied with a fixup to to tests/f_many_subdirs/expect.1, thanks. (Please remember run "make check" before commiting a change.) - Ted
