On tis, 2010-02-09 at 16:02 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Here's a patch to btrfsck from Josef that should fix this:
>
> Sorry, that was an older patch. This is the working one:
It didn't apply cleanly to latest git, so i remerged the patch...
The new output sure looks better in my ey
On tis, 2010-02-09 at 16:17 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> btrfsctl -D ext2_saved/
>> ioctl:: Invalid argument
>
> It's merged (during 2.6.32) -- I think you just have the wrong syntax.
> See http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfsctl.
Ahh, now i get it, thanks =)
> - Chris.
Hi,
> btrfsctl -D ext2_saved/
> ioctl:: Invalid argument
It's merged (during 2.6.32) -- I think you just have the wrong syntax.
See http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfsctl.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On tis, 2010-02-09 at 16:07 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Will this also fix the directory that i can't delete?
>
> No, I think you need "btrfsctl -D" for that.
btrfsctl -D ext2_saved/
ioctl:: Invalid argument
uname -r
2.6.33-rc7
So i assume it's not merged yet?
> - Chris.
--
Ian
Hi,
> Will this also fix the directory that i can't delete?
No, I think you need "btrfsctl -D" for that.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordo
On tis, 2010-02-09 at 16:02 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Here's a patch to btrfsck from Josef that should fix this:
>
> Sorry, that was an older patch. This is the working one:
Will test soon!
Will this also fix the directory that i can't delete?
--
Ian Kumlien -- http://pomac.ne
Hi,
> Here's a patch to btrfsck from Josef that should fix this:
Sorry, that was an older patch. This is the working one:
From: Josef Bacik
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:39:26 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] patch fix-space-accounting.patch
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
---
btrfsck.c | 32 ++
Hi,
> Hi, I assume this has something to do with using updated btrfs
> and old btrfs utils, but it's only the presentation that is
> wrong.
Yes, this wouldn't happen with latest btrfs-progs.
> But df -h gives:
> /dev/mapper/root145G -64Z -122G 100% /
Here's a patch to btrfsc
Hi,
I assume this has something to do with using updated btrfs and old btrfs
utils, but it's only the presentation that is wrong.
btrfs-show gives:
Label: none uuid: 2332476e-ed10-44b4-844b-c85cc7388a61
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 266.53GB
devid1 size 145.00GB used 145.00G
