"Yan, Zheng " <yanzheng@xxxxxxxx> writes: > This is a known bug in btrfs kernel driver, it's fixed in 2.6.32-rcX. Thank you, good to know. > This is a known bug in btrfs-progs 0.19, it's fixed in > btrfs-progs-untable tree. Thank you, good to know. > These errors are not critical. Some inodes' link counts are zero, > but they aren't marked as orphan inodes. I have no idea how this > can happen. Did you run btrfsck on mounted FS? Yes, I did run it on a mounted FS. An earlier wiki document said that btrfsck can be run on a mounted or an unmounted filesystem - however the wiki said earlier that it can be run either on a mounted or an unmounted fs. Btrfsck doesn't complain that it's being run on a mounted fs... then again, I'm not sure if it can know that. > Copying files out and in is the simplest and safest solution. > Sorry for the inconvenience. No problem. But, I am wondering, is btrfsck at some point supposed to fix this kind of corruption? Is it on the roadmap at some point? I mean, it's ofcourse obvious that bugs like this are fixed at the source, so errors like this should no longer happen. However, there will always be bugs, or if not bugs then just the processor randomly calculating wrong once in a blue moon, and it would be good to know that btrfsck can fix the filesystem even in situations that "cannot" happen. And free space accounting is probably easiest of them all. -- Naked -- 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
