Debian Bug report logs - #1028039
Mention "use run e2fsck -f" to fix.

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #3 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dan Jacobson <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Subject: Mention "use run e2fsck -f" to fix.

Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 15:21:02 +0800

Package: e2fsprogs
Version: 1.46.6~rc1-1+b1

Please instead of making users nervous by just saying:

fsck from util-linux 2.38.1
Inode 65923 extent tree (at level 1) could be shorter.  IGNORED.

Please simply add "use run e2fsck -f" to fix:

Inode 65923 extent tree (at level 1) could be shorter.  IGNORED.
Use run e2fsck -f" to fix.

It works!:

# e2fsck -f /dev/mmcblk0p2
e2fsck 1.46.6-rc1 (12-Sep-2022)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 65923 extent tree (at level 1) could be shorter.  Optimize<y>? yes

That way users would know how to avoid getting the warning forever.

Also they wouldn't need to do
https://www.google.com/search?q=Inode+extent+tree+(at+level+1)+could+be+shorter.+IGNORED.
as you see many many have.

Message #8 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Dilger <[email protected]>

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Mention "use run e2fsck -f" to fix.

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:16:18 +0000

The "extent tree (at level 1) could be narrower" message is
overly verbose and raises concerns by end users, even though
it is harmless.  On the flip side, this may save only a few
hundred blocks in the filesystem for a short period of time,
so there is little benefit to be had by printing a message.
    
Disable the extent optimization step in e2fsck by default by
adding the "no_optimize_extents" option to e2fsck.conf.

diff --git a/e2fsck.conf b/e2fsck.conf
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b774f9ebf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/e2fsck.conf
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+[options]
+# disable extent optimization to avoid spurios "errors" during runs
+no_optimize_extents=true

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.