search_rt_dup_extent takes a xfs_rtblock_t, not an RT extent number.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
---
What scares me about this is that no test seems to hit this and report
false duplicates. I'll need to see if I can come up with an
artifical reproducers of some kind.
repair/dinode.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/repair/dinode.c b/repair/dinode.c
index c10dd1fa3..9aa367138 100644
--- a/repair/dinode.c
+++ b/repair/dinode.c
@@ -194,13 +194,11 @@ process_rt_rec_dups(
struct xfs_bmbt_irec *irec)
{
xfs_fsblock_t b;
- xfs_rtblock_t ext;
for (b = rounddown(irec->br_startblock, mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize);
b < irec->br_startblock + irec->br_blockcount;
b += mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize) {
- ext = (xfs_rtblock_t) b / mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize;
- if (search_rt_dup_extent(mp, ext)) {
+ if (search_rt_dup_extent(mp, b)) {
do_warn(
_("data fork in rt ino %" PRIu64 " claims dup rt extent,"
"off - %" PRIu64 ", start - %" PRIu64 ", count %" PRIu64 "\n"),
--
2.39.2
