Re: [Fwd: ext2fs patch for large stores, RC1+20040304]

[Ognyan Kulev]

Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
> > ext2fs.static: ../../ext2fs/pager.c:1045: disk_cache_block_ref:
> >     Assertion '0 <= block && block <= store->size >>
> >     log2_block_size' failed.
>
> It seems that somewhere in code invalid block number (e.g., with highest 
> bit set) is used.  Backtrace is very valuable for finding where is the 
> problem.  I'll try to reproduce this bug.

It can be that block with metadata (that contains block numbers) is 
somehow mapped incorrectly :-(

Regards,
ogi