On 2017年09月17日 15:08, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
At Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:26:23 +0900,
Qu Wenruo wrote:
Marc reported that "btrfs check --repair" runs much faster than "btrfs
check", which is quite weird.
This patch will add time elapsed for each major tree it checked, for
both original mode and
At Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:26:23 +0900,
Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> Marc reported that "btrfs check --repair" runs much faster than "btrfs
> check", which is quite weird.
>
> This patch will add time elapsed for each major tree it checked, for
> both original mode and lowmem mode, so we can have a clue
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 02:26:23PM +0900, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Marc reported that "btrfs check --repair" runs much faster than "btrfs
> check", which is quite weird.
>
> This patch will add time elapsed for each major tree it checked, for
> both original mode and lowmem mode, so we can have a clue
Marc reported that "btrfs check --repair" runs much faster than "btrfs
check", which is quite weird.
This patch will add time elapsed for each major tree it checked, for
both original mode and lowmem mode, so we can have a clue what's going
wrong.
Reported-by: Marc MERLIN