On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:45:59PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Sean Greenslade > <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In the mean time, is there any way to make the kernel more verbose about > > btrfs errors? It would be nice to see, for example, what was in the > > transaction that failed, or at least what files / metadata it was > > touching. > > No idea. Maybe one of the compile time options: > > > CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y > This also requires mount options, either check_int or check_int_data > CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS > CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG=y > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/846462/ > CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT=y > > Actually, even before that maybe if you did a 'btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sdX' > > That might explode in the vicinity of the problem. Thing is, btrfs > check doesn't see anything wrong with the metadata, so chances are > debug-tree won't either. Hmm, I'll probably have a go at compiling the latest mainline kernel with CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG enabled. It certainly can't hurt to try. And as you suspected, btrfs-debug-tree didn't explode / error out on me. I didn't thoroughly inspect the output (as I have very little understanding of the btrfs internals), but it all seemed OK. --Sean -- 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
