similar to: FS Error

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, On a newly created filesystem with btrfs-progs-git-20111009 and the 3.1.0-rc8 kernel I am getting the following error when doing btrfsck after main OS installation fs tree 256 refs 2 unresolved ref root 256 dir 256 index 2 namelen 8 name __active error 600 found 4215058432 bytes used err is 1 total csum bytes: 3962760 total tree bytes: 157192192 total fs tree bytes: 146976768

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

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 +++

After upgrading from 2.6.39-rc7 to 2.6.39 this morning, I tried to mount my 3 disk btrfs volume (no subvolumes, space caching enabled, lzo compression) and received some parent transid errors (going back to rc7 didn''t help, though): btrfs: disk space caching is enabled parent transid verify failed on 6038227976192 wanted 337418 found 337853 parent transid verify failed on 6038227976192

I suspect this might be related to previous btrfs errors I''ve had on the same filesystem. See: http://python.ca/nas/linux/btrfs_bug.txt The most recent kernel message is: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:8239 btrfs_free_block_groups+0x218/0x275() Hardware name: MS-7388 Modules linked in: udf crc_itu_t isofs loop nls_iso8859_1 vboxnetflt vboxdrv nls_utf8 nls_cp437

So I''m having a bit of trouble with one of my btrfs filesystems. It isn''t mounting after a power failure. I can''t get restore or btrfsck to run, even on backup supers. I''ve pasted some output below. My btrfs-progs below come from git this morning, running on linux 3.2.0. # mount /dev/md2 /media/test/ mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on

Hi, In data giovedì 4 giugno 2015 11:56:41, Pino Tsao ha scritto: > Disable the test case temporarily for 2 reasons: > 1. Because the default test disk size is 500M, while btrfs > convert command think it is too small to convert it(actually, > just add 10M or 20M more is enough). If the base test disks that are available in tests/c-api/tests are not enough, just write

Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@gmail.com> --- man/Makefile | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ man/btrfsck.8.in | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 man/Makefile create mode 100644 man/btrfsck.8.in diff --git a/man/Makefile b/man/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2665dd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/man/Makefile

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 01:58:07PM +0300, Maxim Perevedentsev wrote: > On 07/07/2016 06:59 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > >However I'm not convinced that this means my statement before about > >set_uuid should take a Mountable instead of a Device is wrong. It > >could still be changed to take a Mountable, and either we'd have to > >document that

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

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/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 @@

Hi, I will send a series patches that add snapshot/subvol deletion soon. But the way to delete snapshot/subvol is far from people''s expectancy. To delete a snapshot/subvol, we need four steps: 1) snapshot/subvol deletion ioctl or rmdir; 2) umount; 3) btrfsck; 4) mount the fs. The reason for this is bug in root back & forward references. In simple terms, the bug prevents us from

Signed-off-by: Pino <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/btrfs.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ generator/actions.ml | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+) diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c index 39392f7..7f10792 100644 --- a/daemon/btrfs.c +++ b/daemon/btrfs.c @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ GUESTFSD_EXT_CMD(str_btrfsck, btrfsck);

Hi btrfs-team/-users, I do observe a strange behavior upon booting of my openSUSE 12.1 system ( kernel 3.1.10-1.9-desktop; x86_64 ) with btrfsprogs-0.19-43.7.1.x86_64 utils installed: The system has two btrfs-vols: root(sda7) & home(sda8) and had been created during system setup of openSUSE 12.1: # btrfs filesystem show Label: none uuid: a288fcff-28c8-4764-8efe-1e0cb205d588

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

Short options have to be repeated at the getopt_long call. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> --- btrfsck.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/btrfsck.c b/btrfsck.c index 088b9f4..2e81adc 100644 --- a/btrfsck.c +++ b/btrfsck.c @@ -3499,7 +3499,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) while(1) { int c; - c = getopt_long(ac, av, "",