On lör, 2013-06-29 at 03:08 -0600, cwillu wrote: > > Not sure I entirely follow: mounting with -o degraded (not -o > recovery) is how you're supposed to mount if there's a disk missing. What I'm wondering about is why btrfsck segfaults, why it won't claim which drive is supposedly "corrupt" in a data-loss case. In this case the drive was present, at least the first superblock should be readable, but I get these somewhat strange issues. Re-sending as I forgot CC. ( Curse you, evolution ) //D.S. -- 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
