---
fsck.btrfs | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fsck.btrfs b/fsck.btrfs
index f056a7f..20b070a 100755
--- a/fsck.btrfs
+++ b/fsck.btrfs
@@ -26,12 +26,13 @@ do
a|A|p|y)AUTO=true;;
esac
done
+shift $(($OPTIND -1))
BTW, this line is missing
On 15 May 2015 at 21:28, Dimitri John Ledkov dimitri.j.led...@intel.com wrote:
Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784911
Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov dimitri.j.led...@intel.com
---
fsck.btrfs | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
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 dimitri.j.led...@intel.com
---
fsck.btrfs | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
---
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 [ ! -e $DEV ]; then
echo $0: $DEV does not exist
exit 8
fi
-if [ $AUTO
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 dimitri.j.led...@intel.com
Applied,
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 Bash,
Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784911
Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov dimitri.j.led...@intel.com
---
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
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 only first. So this one's
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 filed that bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
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
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 rules when
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 program) should be included in any case
Convert man page for fsck.btrfs.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
Documentation/Makefile | 2 +-
Documentation/fsck.btrfs.txt | 51
2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation
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 fsck
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 btrfs is doing here is the more sensible
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
v2:
* install the new file
Makefile| 1 +
fsck.btrfs | 40
man/Makefile| 3 ++-
man/fsck.btrfs.8.in | 47 +++
4 files changed, 90
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
fsck.btrfs | 40
man/Makefile| 3 ++-
man/fsck.btrfs.8.in | 47 +++
3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100755
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com
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
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com 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
fsck.xfs does
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, most users won't
either, and nor will most distributions. So
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
correctly set fs_passno to 0
On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com 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
fsck.xfs does
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
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
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-generator
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
fs_passno to 0
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/fstab
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 appropriate program to run at bootup? If it
is, with what parameters?
No, it's
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 what it's worth, I gather that the XFS
On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net 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 in fstab, or symlink /sbin/fsck.btrfs
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?
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 btrfs
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 checker on every boot. You can
either turn off
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 transid
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 from
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:
fsck with the fs mounted is not supported
2010/2/25 Adam Kłobukowski adamklobukow...@gmail.com:
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
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Albert Strasheim full...@gmail.com 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.
://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 csum
38 matches
Mail list logo
