On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:50:55PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> First fix == bashism, as that is not accepted by e.g. Debian/Ubuntu
> dash.
>
> Secondly shift OPTIND, such that last parameter is checked to exist.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov
> ---
>
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:50:55PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> First fix == bashism, as that is not accepted by e.g. Debian/Ubuntu
> dash.
>
> Secondly shift OPTIND, such that last parameter is checked to exist.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov
Applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe f
First fix == bashism, as that is not accepted by e.g. Debian/Ubuntu
dash.
Secondly shift OPTIND, such that last parameter is checked to exist.
Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov
---
fsck.btrfs | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fsck.btrfs b/fsck.btrfs
index
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:19:59AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 15 May 2015 at 21:28, Dimitri John Ledkov
> wrote:
> > Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784911
> > Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov
> > ---
> > fsck.btrfs
On 15 May 2015 at 21:28, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784911
> Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov
> ---
> fsck.btrfs | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsck.btrfs b/fsck.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:58:28AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:27:11AM +0200, Florian Gamböck wrote:
> > Am 15.05.2015 um 22:43 schrieb Omar Sandoval:
> > >I'm going to completely bikeshed here, but Yoda conditions are already
> > >ugly in C, and completely pointless in
Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784911
Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov
---
fsck.btrfs | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fsck.btrfs b/fsck.btrfs
index f056a7f..3a92804 100755
--- a/fsck.btrfs
+++ b/fsck.btrfs
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ if
t. Since
>> the fs isn't mounted, fstab isn't available. And the fstab.empty file
>> I found in the initramfs is in fact empty. So even with fs_passno set
>> to 0, systemd is trying to run fsck.btrfs, which it fails to find,
>> warns about, then moves on.
>>
I found in the initramfs is in fact empty. So even with fs_passno set
> to 0, systemd is trying to run fsck.btrfs, which it fails to find,
> warns about, then moves on.
>
> I filed that bug here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098799
[@ Chris M, I sent this to you o
On May 20, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 20 May 2014 10:56:26 -0600 as excerpted:
>
>> Should the initrd/initramfs no longer include btrfsck, and instead
>> include btrfs and fsck.btrfs?
>
> btrfs (the prog
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 20 May 2014 10:56:26 -0600 as excerpted:
> Should the initrd/initramfs no longer include btrfsck, and instead
> include btrfs and fsck.btrfs?
btrfs (the program) should be included in any case as btrfs device scan
should be run (normally triggered via udev rule
Should the initrd/initramfs no longer include btrfsck, and instead include
btrfs and fsck.btrfs?
In btrfs-progs 3.14 there is now a 1K /sbin/fsck.btrfs placeholder file.
btrfs and btrfsck files are the same binary, the difference is btrfsck only can
do check/repair. Including btrfs instead
Convert man page for fsck.btrfs.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
Documentation/Makefile | 2 +-
Documentation/fsck.btrfs.txt | 51
2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/fsck.btrfs.txt
diff --git a
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:18:53PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> * fsck is skipped for filesystems where the relevant helper does not
> exist, so fs_passno=1 has the same effect for xfs and btrfs
> filesystems (either way, nothing happens).
>
> That still leaves non-systemd systems and calling "f
assno to 1 or 2 in /etc/fstab. We have no control over that and so
> asserting that "we don't need a fsck.btrfs because we can set passno
> to 0" is invalid. IOWs, fsck.btrfs needs to be present and it needs
> to behave correctly in these cases
I actually think what btrf
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
v2:
* install the new file
Makefile| 1 +
fsck.btrfs | 40
man/Makefile| 3 ++-
man/fsck.btrfs.8.in | 47 +++
4 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 1
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
fsck.btrfs | 40
man/Makefile| 3 ++-
man/fsck.btrfs.8.in | 47 +++
3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100755 fsck.btrfs
create mode
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Dave Chinner
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:40:49PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsc
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:40:49PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful
>> of threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:55:09 -0700 as excerpted:
> If I change the bootloader kernel paramter line from ro to rw, and
> simply wipe out the roofs entry from fstab, I still have a bootable
> system. Is there a good reason why rootfs on btrfs should initially
> mount ro? It seems
If I change the bootloader kernel paramter line from ro to rw, and simply wipe
out the roofs entry from fstab, I still have a bootable system. Is there a good
reason why rootfs on btrfs should initially mount ro? It seems the legacy
reason for this is so rootfs is available, yet can still have
On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:40:49PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful
>> of threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:40:49PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful
> of threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like
> fsck.xfs does, but then also the idea that /etc/fstab should
> cor
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:43:02 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Just symlink/copy fsck.btrfs to (/bin/)true.
>
> I'm not doing this every time I install an OS, mos
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>
> Just symlink/copy fsck.btrfs to (/bin/)true.
I'm not doing this every time I install an OS, most users won't either, and
nor will most distributions. So in effect, this suggestion places t
On 11/26/2013 04:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:40:49 -0700 as excerpted:
Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful of
threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like fsck.xfs
does, but then also the idea that /etc/
Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:40:49 -0700 as excerpted:
> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful of
> threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like fsck.xfs
> does, but then also the idea that /etc/fstab should correctly set
Hi,
Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful of threads
indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like fsck.xfs does, but then
also the idea that /etc/fstab should correctly set fs_passno to 0 instead of
such trickery.
I ask due to systemd-fstab-gene
gt; /boot and swap on regular partitions. BTW, this is on
> > qemu/kvm/libvirt virtuals.
> >
> > I discovered an error was occurring during bootup because systemd
> > was attempting to start fsck.btrfs and it was missing.
> >
> > 1. Would btrfsck be the appro
On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
>>> 1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it
>>> is, with what parameters?
>>
>> No, it's not necessary to run an fs checker on every boot. You can
>> either turn off the checks
> > 1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it
> > is, with what parameters?
>
>No, it's not necessary to run an fs checker on every boot. You can
> either turn off the checks in fstab, or symlink /sbin/fsck.btrfs to
> /bin/true.
For w
t; I discovered an error was occurring during bootup because systemd was
> attempting to start fsck.btrfs and it was missing.
>
> 1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it is, with
> what parameters?
I'd check /etc/fstab. I'm pretty sure at the
uals.
>
> I discovered an error was occurring during bootup because systemd
> was attempting to start fsck.btrfs and it was missing.
>
> 1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it
> is, with what parameters?
No, it's not necessary to run an fs ch
attempting to start fsck.btrfs and it was missing.
1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it is,
with what parameters?
2. Should there be a fsck.btrfs but it has not been written yet?
3. Does btrfs even need a "fsck.btrfs"?
I get the distinct impression that
2010/2/25 Adam Kłobukowski :
> Is it possible to find out if I've done any harm to the fs by trying to
> do online fsck?
btrfsck doesn't make any changes to the filesystem, so no harm will
have been done.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a me
W dniu 25.02.2010 15:08, jim owens pisze:
> Adam Kłobukowski wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm running Ubuntu Lucid (2.6.32-14-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Sat Feb
>> 20 07:07:46 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux)
>>
>> Doing online fsck.btrfs on 2TB volume dumps core:
&g
Adam Kłobukowski wrote:
Hello
I'm running Ubuntu Lucid (2.6.32-14-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Sat Feb
20 07:07:46 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux)
Doing online fsck.btrfs on 2TB volume dumps core:
fsck with the fs mounted is not supported.
there is a pending patch for fsck.btrfs to prevent it
Hello
I'm running Ubuntu Lucid (2.6.32-14-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Sat Feb
20 07:07:46 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux)
Doing online fsck.btrfs on 2TB volume dumps core:
$ sudo fsck.btrfs /dev/mapper/truecrypt1
parent transid verify failed on 899904352256 wanted 71346 found 71328
parent tr
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Albert Strasheim wrote:
> We are experimenting with btrfs and we've run into some problems.
> We are running on two Sun Storage J4400 Arrays containing a total of
> 48 1 TB disks.
> With 24 disks in the btrfs:
> Now with one more disk:
False alarm. Turns out the s
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using
adding device /dev/sdc id 2
...
adding device /dev/sdy id 24
fs created label (null) on /dev/sdb
nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sectorsize 4096 size 21.83TB
Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
fsck.btrfs runs fine:
# sudo fsck.btrfs /dev/sdb
found 36864 bytes used err is 0
total
40 matches
Mail list logo
