Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

[Hendrik Friedel <hendrik@friedels.name>]

Hello,

sorry, I was totally unaware still being on 3.11rc2.

I re-ran btrfsck with the same result:
./btrfs-progs/btrfsck /dev/sdc1
Checking filesystem on /dev/sdc1
UUID: 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f
checking extents
checking free space cache
checking fs roots
root 256 inode 9579 errors 100
root 256 inode 9580 errors 100
root 256 inode 14258 errors 100
root 256 inode 14259 errors 100
root 4444 inode 9579 errors 100
root 4444 inode 9580 errors 100
root 4444 inode 14258 errors 100
root 4444 inode 14259 errors 100
found 1992865028914 bytes used err is 1
total csum bytes: 3207847732
total tree bytes: 3902865408
total fs tree bytes: 38875136
total extent tree bytes: 135864320
btree space waste bytes: 411665032
file data blocks allocated: 3426722545664
  referenced 3426000965632
Btrfs v0.20-rc1-358-g194aa4a


Now dmesg and the syslog stay clear of entries relatet to btrfs.
But I think, that might also be a coincidence: I ran the old Kernel for 
weeks until this error came, whereas I ran this kernel merely 12h.

Now:
Does it make sense to futher try to find a possible bug, or do we 
suspect it is fixed? If so: How can I help?

And:
Can I fix these Problems safely with btrfsck?

Regards,
Hendrik

Am 05.11.2013 03:03, schrieb cwillu:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Hendrik Friedel <hendrik@friedels.name> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> the list was quite full with patches, so this might have been hidden.
>> Here the complete Stack.
>> Does this help? Is this what you needed?
>>> [95764.899294] CPU: 1 PID: 21798 Comm: umount Tainted: GF        CIO
>>> 3.11.0-031100rc2-generic #201307211535
>
> Can you reproduce the problem under the released 3.11 or 3.12?  An
> -rc2 is still pretty early in the release cycle, and I wouldn't be at
> all surprised if it was a bug added and fixed in a later rc.
>


-- 
Hendrik Friedel
Auf dem Brink 12
28844 Weyhe
Mobil 0178 1874363