On 2019/7/14 下午5:25, Alexander Wetzel wrote:
>
>>>
>>> filtering for btrfs and removing duplicate lines just shows three uniq
>>> error messages:
>>> BTRFS critical (device vda3): corrupt leaf: root=300 block=8645398528
>>> slot=4 ino=259223, invalid inode generation: has 139737289170944 expec
filtering for btrfs and removing duplicate lines just shows three uniq
error messages:
BTRFS critical (device vda3): corrupt leaf: root=300 block=8645398528
slot=4 ino=259223, invalid inode generation: has 139737289170944 expect
[0, 1425224]
BTRFS critical (device vda3): corrupt leaf: root
[...]
>> I totally understand that the solution I'm going to provide sounds
>> aweful, but I'd recommend to use a newer enough kernel but without that
>> check, to copy all the data to another btrfs fs.
>> > It could be more safe than waiting for a btrfs check to repair it.
>
> No problem for me.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:49 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> I totally understand that the solution I'm going to provide sounds
> aweful, but I'd recommend to use a newer enough kernel but without that
> check, to copy all the data to another btrfs fs.
>
> It could be more safe than waiting for a btrfs ch
Am 14.07.19 um 11:49 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
On 2019/7/14 下午5:25, Alexander Wetzel wrote:
filtering for btrfs and removing duplicate lines just shows three uniq
error messages:
BTRFS critical (device vda3): corrupt leaf: root=300 block=8645398528
slot=4 ino=259223, invalid inode generation: h
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:55:05 PM EDT Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Eric Mesa wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:26:10 AM EDT Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > All your snapshots on source have the same received_uuid (I have no idea
> > > how is it possible). If recei
On 2019/7/14 下午11:40, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:49 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>> I totally understand that the solution I'm going to provide sounds
>> aweful, but I'd recommend to use a newer enough kernel but without that
>> check, to copy all the data to another btrfs fs.
>>
+ if (dump_data && walk_trees) {
+ error("-d conflicts with -f option");
should be ..with -w option
Thanks, Anand
On 4/7/19 2:11 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
static int copy_from_extent_tree(struct metadump_struct *metadump,
-struct btrfs_path *path)
+struct btrfs_path *path, bool dump_data)
{
struct btrfs_root *extent_root;
struc
