From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311CBC04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 08:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED750216B7 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 08:34:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rkjnsn-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@rkjnsn-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="WU/h8HSe" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726289AbfEUIey (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 04:34:54 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.222.180]:42053 "EHLO mail-qk1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726006AbfEUIey (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 04:34:54 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d4so10508369qkc.9 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 01:34:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rkjnsn-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qf6g+IrKMjQYaWYd7OR0jNaLXUEknKW0oXr6oMkM1lQ=; b=WU/h8HSeNuh6luRJUrApcaHpn3GFStbiJLORXnkabBHUn7PBs69lUu+aL1skUDrmz0 GHv+P2Pcj6sI6anucaO9adSd2BSaIqmosiKl5PKvo+v6IXbQdh+2k7wGd3C0m15dOS2U Z6fg6DmCPuv0NnfE98ALqFCPvYPVmsE6VJYf0+n39h5VVfo0zL75G7k7WhpJm4NQkxM+ KXCQokUjJvbAFhvCTSV+CY7jd/byACSVMfTfzs10izxFxB0Mt2LuDPGpDECi/5Nwe295 JTdEJVlGHW242sop/MKmvKP/Pi9YLVzSD7KSbWfvB5erpPAJQz48jHRDAyoZT6WdVoYJ 9h0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qf6g+IrKMjQYaWYd7OR0jNaLXUEknKW0oXr6oMkM1lQ=; b=AQ+Rd2E1VGJH4/XhOoTYML9djqAFRz2dShLDQD9RT6XrkvR9VsneYFpFzvU2KyKVkq uKhfnbIJ/Cxmj3Myh+YQ/njTeMLcyldBkdFcHxM3gSkFyv96ePvPQNYr2XccUlZNolfn Scc+dd3/dg/1lRwlrra+JPty9DTpdhvSLS+x3DNCG3pf6RSzRp3V5Fxizp9ac/jLW7nX zYCp9kXqb1IruiGS7LSYONPMIR1GyFtA5poAxp+45y2lR55o23unuddgVxDwJdqEh9Qz wuWWBxe5PK18mVjXAiG2gGriHF1Ob9zyN41yXJGZFqbQHLgxxE2lr5oF6QwuxHb6tnLX Ag9A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVuusQS3c8aTfWpZwKoaLJrMyyts6mSNBGi2d+OWH5KWjL+Qdd0 4CcSQFTncIrb3vpJM2KIfEsMC5At2fxGC2RGW/NvhVH6UKpgrw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyMxLVBD0N5RwNxg/N8B5WwvVZucnP24S/shH1k69tF0MeZBlTbEZQdOYpQvPNInislNuM7vGjn3GfQWjEehuw= X-Received: by 2002:a37:f50d:: with SMTP id l13mr41055470qkk.13.1558427693188; Tue, 21 May 2019 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Erik Jensen Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 01:34:42 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: "bad tree block start" when trying to mount on ARM To: linux-btrfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org I have a 5-drive btrfs filesystem. (raid-5 data, dup metadata). I can mount it fine on my x86_64 system, and running `btrfs check` there reveals no errors. However, I am not able to mount the filesystem on my 32-bit ARM board, which I am hoping to use for lower-power file serving. dmesg shows the following: [ 83.066301] BTRFS info (device dm-3): disk space caching is enabled [ 83.072817] BTRFS info (device dm-3): has skinny extents [ 83.553973] BTRFS error (device dm-3): bad tree block start, want 17628726968320 have 396461950000496896 [ 83.554089] BTRFS error (device dm-3): bad tree block start, want 17628727001088 have 5606876608493751477 [ 83.601176] BTRFS error (device dm-3): bad tree block start, want 17628727001088 have 5606876608493751477 [ 83.610811] BTRFS error (device dm-3): failed to verify dev extents against chunks: -5 [ 83.639058] BTRFS error (device dm-3): open_ctree failed Is this expected to work? I did notice that there are gotchas on the wiki related to filesystems over 8TiB on 32-bit systems, but it sounded like they were mostly related to running the tools, as opposed to the filesystem driver itself. (Each of the five drives is 8TB/7.28TiB) If this isn't expected, what should I do to help track down the issue? Also potentially relevant: The x86_64 system is currently running 4.19.27, while the ARM system is running 5.1.3. Finally, just in case it's relevant, I just finished reencrypting the array, which involved doing a `btrfs replace` on each device in the array. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks.