similar to: [btrfs-progs 3/4] Add man/btrfsck.8.in and Makefile for man pages

Add man/btrfsctl.8.in Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@gmail.com> --- man/btrfsctl.8.in | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 man/btrfsctl.8.in diff --git a/man/btrfsctl.8.in b/man/btrfsctl.8.in new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e11f46a --- /dev/null +++ b/man/btrfsctl.8.in @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@

add man/btrfs-image.8.in Signed-off-by: Peng Tao <bergwolf@gmail.com> --- man/Makefile | 5 ++++- man/btrfs-image.8.in | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) create mode 100644 man/btrfs-image.8.in diff --git a/man/Makefile b/man/Makefile index 2665dd1..b7a7340 100644 --- a/man/Makefile +++ b/man/Makefile @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@

This is the source code of the man page of btrfs. The main changes from my previous patch are: - Rearranged the short command in order to avoid conflicts - Renamed the ''create'' verb is ''subvolume'' Thanks to Daniel for some tweaks on the syntax BR G.Baroncelli diff --git a/man/Makefile b/man/Makefile index 4e8893b..4a90b75 100644 --- a/man/Makefile +++

Split CFLAGS into CFLAGS (user part) and AM_CFLAGS (not-so-user part; variable name taken from automake, but otherwise no relation). Also add LDFLAGS. This allows me to use `make CFLAGS="-O2 -fPIE" LDFLAGS="-pie"` without dropping the other important (AM_CFLAGS) flags. Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> --- btrfs-progs/Makefile | 17

The new xfstests will run fsck against the volume to make sure we didn''t introduce any inconsistencies, which is nice except we will error out immediately if we mount with inode_cache. We need to make btrfsck skip the special free space cache items and then just assume that we have a link for the free space cache inode item. This makes btrfsck pass with success on a fs with inode cache

Add man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in Kept the name with the name in, so that further processing such as BUILD_DATE BUILD_VERSION etc. could be included later. All man pages included in the man directory to avoid file cluttering. Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> --- man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 0

Exec btrfsck on btrfs with snapshots that are under a dropping progress will cause prompt on "ref mismatch". However we do not want this kind of prompt, since an remount operation will continue the dropping progress. Here the prompt is nonsense. Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng <guihc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- cmds-check.c | 101

Hi, I thought that I would attempt a quick little patch that will make btrfsck into a No-op when called as fsck.btrfsck. The reasoning is that the FAQ states that it is recommended and safe to do so, and the current 12.04 version of Ubuntu just symlinks fsck.btrfsck to btrfsck instead of /bin/true. PS - Apologies if I mess this git send-email up! Dan McGrath (1): btrfs-progs: No-op when

i''m not a C developer, but i like to think i know enough to be dangerous (pragmatic) :-D building from git master failed with: .......... .......... gcc -Wp,-MMD,./.btrfsck.o.d,-MT,btrfsck.o -Wall -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os -c btrfsck.c cc1: warnings being treated as errors btrfsck.c: In function ‘maybe_free_inode_rec’: btrfsck.c:323:2: error: implicit

btrfs 0.19 Ubuntu 10.10 Linux linux 2.6.35-23-generic #41-Ubuntu SMP Wed Nov 24 11:55:36 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux I create a new btrfs on a 200GB disk with one partition. I mount the partition. I create a snapshot of that partition. I unmount the partition. I run btrfsck and it says I have an "unresolved ref" error. If I create two snaps, I get three errors. If I create three snaps, I

Hello, I''ve just pulled btrfs-progs from the new git repo git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git However, when I come to make it fails like so: gcc -Wp,-MMD,./.btrfsctl.o.d,-MT,btrfsctl.o -Wall -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os -c btrfsctl.c gcc -g -Werror -Os -o btrfsctl btrfsctl.o ctree.o disk-io.o radix-tree.o extent-tree.o

Hi, I''m having a filesystem that''s been a bit mangled by external causes, so I thought I''d see how much I could salvage (it''s not critical, though). Thus, I pulled btrfsck from git and ran: pannekake:~/btrfs-progs# ./btrfsck --repair /dev/mapper/pannekake-backup-btrfs It spit out a ton of warnings like these (I can get the whole log if you''re

Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <zheng.yan@oracle.com> --- diff -urp btrfs-progs-unstable/btrfsck.c btrfs-progs-2/btrfsck.c --- btrfs-progs-unstable/btrfsck.c 2009-09-28 15:54:55.980479398 +0800 +++ btrfs-progs-2/btrfsck.c 2010-01-31 09:46:24.645485459 +0800 @@ -581,7 +581,6 @@ again: } ret = insert_existing_cache_extent(dst, &ins->cache); if (ret == -EEXIST) { - WARN_ON(src ==

I tried an (offline) btrfsck and got the following error message: > btrfsck /dev/sdb3 btrfsck: btrfsck.c:584: splice_shared_node: Assertion `!(src == &src_node->root_cache)'' failed. Aborted I use kernel version 2.6.32.2 with builtin btrfs-drivers. Greetings, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Heyho! (This is using btrfs from Debian''s 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9 package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c) A few observations about btrfsck: a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram) got killed by Mr. OOM Killer. Initially, I was quite surprised. I''m only moderately surprised now since it might well be that I forgot to enable

Hi! We have some btrfs rsync-snapshot backup servers which have been running since about mid-2009, with a pretty good record so far. We''ve been following the development kernels and hitting some bugs here an there, but we still haven''t managed to lose anything yet. The main problems we have ran in to relate to ENOSPC and reporting full when "df" only shows 74% used,

Hi all, I''ve been playing with btrfs resize recently and run into strange looking behavior to me. One of my simple test scenario was following: - partition some block device (lets say sda sectors 2-2000 are sda1) - try to create btrfs on top of it (just mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda1) - fill the fs with data - unmount the device - let''s simulate usual mistake here: downsize the

NOTE: in order to apply this patch you should: git mv btrfsck.c cmd-fsck.c This patch moves btrfsck in to "btrfs fsck". It also adds support for symlinks to the btrfs binary to retain compablity, =) I think something should be done to the help description but i''m not sure what... Anyway, feedback is welcome. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Hi there, after my filesystem is broken (I have no idea why, because last shut down was nomal) I tried to repair it with btrfsck ( Btrfs v0.20-rc1-56-g6cd836d). But unfortunately the process breaks with: parent transid verify failed on 29896704 wanted 392661 found 395689 parent transid verify failed on 29896704 wanted 392661 found 395689 parent transid verify failed on 29896704 wanted 392661

From: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> $ LDFLAGS=-static make gcc -lpthread -g -O0 -o btrfs btrfs.o btrfs_cmds.o scrub.o \ ctree.o disk-io.o radix-tree.o extent-tree.o print-tree.o root-tree.o dir-item.o file-item.o inode-item.o inode-map.o crc32c.o rbtree.o extent-cache.o extent_io.o volumes.o utils.o btrfs-list.o btrfslabel.o -static -luuid scrub.o: In function