[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BTRFS fsck apparent errors



On 07/03/2012 08:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:22:08PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
    Correct, by default it just checks the filesystem. Just to be sure:
the filesystems in question weren't mounted, were they?

fsck will refuse to run on a mounted filesystem, though in case of a
read-only mount it might be useful during debugging, I'm using this
patch

--- a/btrfsck.c
+++ b/btrfsck.c
@@ -3474,6 +3474,7 @@ static struct option long_options[] = {
         { "repair", 0, NULL, 0 },
         { "init-csum-tree", 0, NULL, 0 },
         { "init-extent-tree", 0, NULL, 0 },
+       { "force", 0, NULL, 0 },

If we were to run with this, I think it should be called something other
than force.  fsck.ext* has trained people to think that 'forcing' a fsck
means doing a full repair pass even if the fs thinks that it was shut
down cleanly.

--read-only would be good if fsck was taught to not even try to write in
this mode.

- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux