I agree to Marc, I created a small patch to `cmds-check.c` (see
attachments). It displays a warning message for 10 seconds if the
repair option is enabled. If you think this is a good idea, can
someone apply this patch?
I am going to roll in my backup soon. Is there anything more that I
should give you as a feedback? I did file one bug:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Marc MERLIN <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:16:13AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Mitch Harder <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Chris Murphy <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 13, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Holger Brandsmeier <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Currently btrfsck failes to repair my partition, I get the output:
>> >>>
>> >>> [root@ho-think bholger]# btrfsck --repair /dev/sda5
>> >>
>> >> This is almost the last resort and you probably should be posting to the
>> >> list before using repair.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is like saying:
>> >
>> > "Yes, btrfs does now have a working btrfsck, but only for the select
>> > few who manage to get through on the mailing list for support."
>> >
>> > I'd like to think that's not the case.
>>
>> Yet that's exactly what the wiki suggests: "If you have a broken filesystem,
>> it is probably better to use btrfsck with advice from one of the btrfs
>> developers, just in case something goes wrong. (But even if it does go badly
>> wrong, you've still got your backups, right?)"
>>
>> I think it's understandably annoying that the repair tool could make things
>> worse rather than fail gracefully, because restoring from backups is
>> tedious. But the only way it gets better is if people break both the file
>> system and the repair tools in ways the devs can't possibly predict.
>
> I hate to be a broken record :) but telling people they should read/have
> read a wiki when they are in the middle of fixing a filesystem is not
> the right way to go.
> On my laptop while travelling, it would even be my only way to boot and
> maybe I can't get to the internet until my FS is fixed (maybe, maybe
> not, but you get the idea).
>
> My main point again (sorry) is still that the man page and usage info of
> btrfsck
> should really warn users "this is likely NOT what you want to run,
> please read the manpage, or HOWTO in /usr/share/doc/ with details about
> mount recovery and other things to try first".
>
> Think of it as a good thing, it means more btrfs users, and they are
> used to working a certain way. It's for btrfs to adapt to how they're
> used to working when possible.
>
> Marc
> --
> "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
> Microsoft is to operating systems ....
> .... what McDonalds is to gourmet
> cooking
> Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | PGP
> 1024R/763BE901
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- cmds-check.c
+++ cmds-check.c
@@ -6427,6 +6427,15 @@ int cmd_check(int argc, char **argv)
if (argc != 1)
usage(cmd_check_usage);
+ if (repair != 0) {
+ printf("\nWARNING: you enabled repair mode, this option could make "
+ "matters worse for your data. It is recommended to check with the "
+ "[email protected] mailing list before you proceed.\n");
+ printf("Sleeping for 10 seconds to give you time to consider..."
+ " hit ctrl+c if you changed your mind.\n");
+ sleep(10);
+ }
+
radix_tree_init();
cache_tree_init(&root_cache);
