On 16/04/2022 00:16, Peter Urbanec wrote:
> In light of recent mailing list traffic, I suspect that the issue may
> be caused by sparse_super2 .
Or perhaps not. It seems that issue mentioned on the list was specific
to online resize, whereas I was attempting an offline resize.
Another difference is that in my case the operation appears to have
completed without any reported errors or warnings on the command line or
in dmesg.
Just silent data corruption.
I am hoping that the resize is reversible and that the change in size
from 3,906,946,560 blocks to 5,860,419,840 blocks did not cause 32-bit
overflows or wraparounds that would result in overwriting data.
Peter