On 2019/1/17 下午6:42, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>
>> You could try this patch:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10738583/
> 
> Do you know, which kernel is needed as base for the patch? Can I apply
> it to 4.19 or do I need more recent? If you don't know, I can just try
> it out.

My base is v5.0-rc1.

Although I think there shouldn't be too many conflicts for older kernels.

Thanks,
Qu

>> Or go btrfs-restore.
> 
> I already tried a dry run:
> btrfs restore -D /dev/md42 /
> This is a dry-run, no files are going to be restored
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> parent transid verify failed on 448937984 wanted 68772 found 68770
> parent transid verify failed on 448937984 wanted 68772 found 68770
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> parent transid verify failed on 450281472 wanted 32623 found 30451
> parent transid verify failed on 450281472 wanted 32623 found 30451
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> We have looped trying to restore files in <filename> too many times to
> be making progress, stopping
> 
> The filenames are actually directories, but as far as I understand,
> actually no files can be restored.
> 
> 
>> I'm more interested in the history of the fs.
>>
>> Did the fs get created/modified by some older kernel?
>> Especially considering you're using Gentoo, and every kernel update
>> needs time consuming compile, it may be caused by some older kernel.
> 
> Yes, the filesystem is "older", though I don't really know how old, I
> would guess something between 1 and 2 years, and I update kernels every
> 1-2 months. Unfortunatelly I can't give better details of creation of
> the fs.
> 
> BR, Christian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to