On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:47 PM Patrick Erley <pat-lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:43 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2019/12/30 下午1:36, Patrick Erley wrote: > > > (ugh, just realized gmail does top replies. Sorry... will try to > > > figure out how to make gsuite behave like a sane mail client before my > > > next reply): > > > > > > here's btrfs check /dev/nvme0n1p2 (sda3, which is a mirror of it, has > > > exactly the same output) > > > > > > [1/7] checking root items > > > [2/7] checking extents > > > [3/7] checking free space cache > > > [4/7] checking fs roots > > > [5/7] checking only csums items (without verifying data) > > > [6/7] checking root refs > > > [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not enabled on this FS) > > > Opening filesystem to check... > > > Checking filesystem on /dev/nvme0n1p2 > > > UUID: 815266d6-a8b9-4f63-a593-02fde178263f > > > found 89383137280 bytes used, no error found > > > total csum bytes: 85617340 > > > total tree bytes: 1670774784 > > > total fs tree bytes: 1451180032 > > > total extent tree bytes: 107905024 > > > btree space waste bytes: 413362851 > > > file data blocks allocated: 90769887232 > > > referenced 88836960256 > > > > It looks too good to be true, is the btrfs-progs v5.4? IIRC in v5.4 we > > should report inodes generation problems. > > Hurray Bottom Reply? > > /usr/src/initramfs/bin $ ./btrfs.static --version > btrfs-progs v5.4 Dumb question, did I need to do that while booting a post 5.1 kernel? I ran these while not having the filesystem mounted, but against kernel 5.1. I can easily repeat against 5.4.
