From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:43369 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758804AbcBYAnK (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:43:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] btrfs-find-root enhancement for chunk tree corrupted fs To: , References: <1456124397-21403-1-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160224123806.GC23746@twin.jikos.cz> From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <56CE4CE7.3020300@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:37:59 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160224123806.GC23746@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Sterba wrote on 2016/02/24 13:38 +0100: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 02:59:52PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> Before this patchset, btrfs-find-root needs valid chunk tree from the >> fs. >> However for chunk root corrupted case, btrfs-find-root is of no use due >> to above limitation. >> >> This patchset will allow open_ctree_fs_info() to return a fs_info >> without any valid tree root, but system chunk map from superblock only. >> And modify btrfs-find-root along with some infrastructure to do chunk >> root search. >> >> Also fix an old bug where btrfs-find-root will always skip the first >> chunk, with its corresponding regression test. >> >> This also provides the basis for later "btrfsck --chunk-root" and faster >> chunk-recovery enhancement. >> >> Qu Wenruo (5): >> btrfs: volume: Fix a bug causing btrfs-find-root to skip first chunk >> btrfs: Allow open_ctree to return fs_info even chunk tree is corrupted >> btrfs: Add support for tree block operations on fs_info without roots. >> btrfs: find-root: Allow btrfs-find-root to search chunk root even >> chunk root is corrupted >> btrfs: misc-test: Add regression test for find-root gives empty result > > All applied, with minor adjustments. I'm not going to point them out > in the mails, please make a diff against your branch to see. > > Thanks for the modification. It's completely OK. Thanks, Qu