Re: BTRFS fsck apparent errors

[Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net>]

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