On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 07:14:44PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:29:18AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2020/7/28 上午10:12, Daniel Xu wrote: > > > This change can save the user an extra step of running `btrfs check > > > --init-extent-tree ...` if the user was already trying to repair the > > > filesystem. > > > > This looks too aggressive to me. > > > > Extent tree repair, not only --init-extent-tree, is not considered safe > > overall. > > > > In fact, we could hit cases with things like completely sane fs trees, > > but corrupted extent and csum trees. > > > > In that case, I'm not sure --init-extent-tree would solve or just worse > > the situation. > > > > Thus --init-extent-tree should only be triggered by users who know what > > they are doing. > > (In that case, I would call them developers other than users) > > I have basically the same answer, just did not get to writing it. I'll > have another look after the merge window is over. > > This touches on the higher level topic what shoud check do, we can't > trade convenience for safety. The extra step to specify the option on > the command line can be actually the difference between repairing and > not repairing.
To answer that, favoring safety over convenience here, so the option needs to be specified manually if needed.
