On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:15:27AM -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote: > > > On 2024-10-17 1:39 AM PDT Kent Overstreet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ... > > > Again - bcachefs was only merged in 6.7, clearly marked experimental, > > and you're running 6.9; this kind of bug is exactly the sort of thing we > > try to shake out in the experimental phase. > > Not a bcachefs problem but as a distribution user I would have no idea > that bcachefs was experimental. Every major distribution I've looked > at recently includes the bcachefs module and tools and there is > nothing to tell the user it's experimental. Only the person who > actually configured the kernel (or people who read mailing lists) > would know that it's experimental.
I'm honestly not surprised, when I met with the Fedora people just prior to 6.7 I spent most of the meeting telling them to _slow down_. > Perhaps if this is to be expected right now the bcachefs command line > tool should output a big warning letting users know that bcachefs is > experimental and might eat their data? Honestly not warrented at this point, things have been stabilizing fast and I'm likely 6 months or so from taking the experimental label off. > > Also, a fsck would have sufficed, if you haven't ran that already. > > That must be a different bug because that doesn't work. I still have > the old filesystem images and I just tried fsck again, then mounted, > then tried to unmount and immediately got the same filesystem lockup. > Time to reboot. See below. Please try 6.10 - I can't get any fixes into 6.9 anymore, but if you still run into issues on 6.10 I can fix that. And check 'bcachefs fs usage' first, that will tell us if disc accounting is screwed up or if we're looking for something else.
