On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Vasco Almeida <vascomalmeida@xxxxxxx> wrote: > File system image available at (choose one link) > https://mega.nz/#!AkAEgKyB!RUa7G5xHIygWm0ALx5ZxQjjXNdFYa7lDRHJ_sW0bWLs > https://www.sendspace.com/file/i70cft > Should I file a bug report with that image dump linked above or btrfs- > debug-tree output or both? If it were me, I'd include both. Maybe the image is incomplete or vice versa. The debug tree output is also human readable. I'd also put them up in a cloud location where you can kinda forget about them for a while, I've had images not looked at for 6+ months by a dev. > I think I will use the subject of this thread as summary to file the > bug. Can you think of something more suitable or is that fine? I would try to summarize something like: file system created with btrfs-progs version -----, and mostly used with kernel version -----, and inexplicably the file system became unusable at boot time always mounting only readonly. Newer kernel versions still could not mount it, nor was btrfs check using btrfs-progs version ----- able to repair. See thread URL for more details. btrfs-image URL btrfs-debug-tree URL > I think I will reinstall the OS since, even if I manage to recover the > file system from this issue, that OS will be something I can not trust > fully. Yeah pretty much that's right. There is an rpm command where you can have it check the signatures of all installed binaries, but I forget what it is offhand. That'd be an alternative to reinstalling if the init options were to work. -- Chris Murphy -- 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
