On 07/03/2012 08:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:22:08PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:Correct, by default it just checks the filesystem. Just to be sure: the filesystems in question weren't mounted, were they?fsck will refuse to run on a mounted filesystem, though in case of a read-only mount it might be useful during debugging, I'm using this patch --- a/btrfsck.c +++ b/btrfsck.c @@ -3474,6 +3474,7 @@ static struct option long_options[] = { { "repair", 0, NULL, 0 }, { "init-csum-tree", 0, NULL, 0 }, { "init-extent-tree", 0, NULL, 0 }, + { "force", 0, NULL, 0 },
If we were to run with this, I think it should be called something other than force. fsck.ext* has trained people to think that 'forcing' a fsck means doing a full repair pass even if the fs thinks that it was shut down cleanly. --read-only would be good if fsck was taught to not even try to write in this mode. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
