> Anyways, thought I would reply back with some insight on the matter
> and see what others had to say, since I am in no position to dictate
> the direction that brtfsck/fsck.btrfs should take as far as wrapper
> script or no is concerned. Look forward to your replies! o/
FWIW: debian has been car
Jan,
It would appear that:
# fsck -- --repair /dev/storage/lv_btrfs
doesn't work, but if I put the fs-specific-options at the end:
# fsck /dev/storage/lv_btrfs -- --repair
it works fine. As we were/are discussing on irc, I also have no idea
where the ext4 lines come from. *scratcheshead*
On 4/15/13 11:45 AM, Dan McGrath wrote:
> Jan,
>
> I got a chance to sit down and dig a little bit deeper into
> `fsck.xfs`. Here is what I discovered.
>
> The "(a|A|y|p)" options in the XFS script appear to be nothing more
> than the expected `fsck` options that imply automated checks (as is
> c
Jan,
I got a chance to sit down and dig a little bit deeper into
`fsck.xfs`. Here is what I discovered.
The "(a|A|y|p)" options in the XFS script appear to be nothing more
than the expected `fsck` options that imply automated checks (as is
clearly implied by the use of AUTO). While I have yet to
On 4/15/13 9:03 AM, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dan McGrath wrote:
>> As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath
>> ---
>> btrfs.c |2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a
My sincere apologies. It would appear that I was overly careful about
checking the binary functioned when called as a symlink, but not the
correct filename:
# ls -l `which fsck.btrfs`
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Aug 25 2011 /sbin/fsck.btrfs -> btrfsck
So yes, the patch incorrectly assumed a sym
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dan McGrath wrote:
> As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath
> ---
> btrfs.c |2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
> index 691adef..78161a9 100644
> --- a/b
As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath
---
btrfs.c |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
index 691adef..78161a9 100644
--- a/btrfs.c
+++ b/btrfs.c
@@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv
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/tru
