Convert root->sectorsize/nodesize users in btrfs-corrupt-block.
This provides the basis to further refactor incorrect btrfs_root
parameter to btrfs_fs_info parameter.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Since we have cached block sizes in fs_info, there is no need to specify
these sizes in btrfs_setup_root() function.
And refactor all root->sector/node/stripesize users in disk-io.c.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
btrfs_fs_info
Just like what we do in kernel, since we will not support different
leaf/node/stripe size per tree, there is no need to store these block
sizes in btrfs_root.
This patch will introduce these block size members into btrfs_fs_info
structure, allowing us to convert such usage in later patches.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Leafsize is deprecated for a long time, and kernel has already updated
ctree.h to rename sb->leafsize to sb->__unused_leafsize.
This patch will remove normal users of leafsize:
1) Remove leafsize member from btrfs_root structure
Now only root->nodesize and root->sectorisze.
No longer root->leafsize.
2) Remove @leafsize parameter from btrfs_setup_root() function
Since no root->leafsize, no need for @leafsize parameter.
The remaining user of leafsize will be:
1) btrfs inspect-internal dump-super
Reformat the "leafsize" output to "leafsize (deprecated)" and
use le32_to_cpu() to do the cast manually.
2) mkfs
We still need to set sb->__unused_leafsize to nodesize.
Do the manual cast too.
3) convert
Same as mkfs, these two superblock setup should be merged later
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
In btrfs_check_chunk_valid() we calculate chunk item using open code,
use an existing helper btrfs_chunk_item_size() instead.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
So btrfs_set_header_flags() vs btrfs_set_header_flag, the difference is
sort of similar to "=" vs "|=", when creating and initialising a new
extent buffer, convert uses the former one which clears header_rev by
accident.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
With the current btrfs-convert, if we convert a ext4 without data checksum,
it'd not set nodatasum flag in inode item, nor create csum item, reading
file ends up with checksum errors.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
This updates mkfs.btrfs's man page with the new limitation that nodesize must
be a power of 2 as well.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
As Qu mentioned in this thread
(https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg64469.html), compression
can cause regular extent to co-exist with an inlined extent. This
coexistence makes things confusing. Since it is currently allowed and
can appear in a filesystem, fix btrfsck to prevent a bunch of error
reports to appear that will make user feel uneasy.
When checking a file extent, record the extent_end of the regular extent
to check if there is a gap between the regular extents. Normally there
is only one inlined extent, so the extent_end of inlined extent is
useless. However, if a regular extent can co-exist with an inlined
extent, the extent_end of the inlined extent also needs to be recorded.
Reported-by: Marc MERLIN <marc@merlins.org>
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Add test case which we have NO_HOLES incompat flag while still have
hole file extent.
This can be created by enabling NO_HOLES feature on an existing
filesystem, which lowmem mode would cause false alert for it.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
[ minor adjustments ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Since the incompat feature NO_HOLES still allows us to have an explicit
hole file extent, current check is too strict and will cause false
alerts like:
root 5 EXTENT_DATA[257, 0] shouldn't be hole
Fix it by removing the strict file hole extent check.
Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg66374.html
Reported-by: Henk Slager <eye1tm@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Henk Slager <eye1tm@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
With larger file system (in this case its 22TB), ext2fs_open() returns
EXT2_ET_CANT_USE_LEGACY_BITMAPS error message with
ext2fs_read_block_bitmap().
To overcome this issue,
(a) we need pass EXT2_FLAG_64BITS flag with ext2fs_open.
(b) use 64-bit functions like ext2fs_get_block_bitmap_range2,
ext2fs_inode_data_blocks2,ext2fs_read_ext_attr2
(c) use 64bit types with btrfs_convert_context fields
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194795
Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G <lakshmipathi.g@giis.co.in>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The u32 types in the convert context might not be enough for some very
large filesytems (20TB). Use 64bit types to be safe.
Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G <lakshmipathi.g@giis.co.in>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
"Bug 194961 - btrfs device stats --check <folder> does not work"
The long option --check is not recognized as it's missing from the
option table.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194961
Reported-by: Tomas Thiemel<thiemel@centrum.cz>
Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G <Lakshmipathi.G@giis.co.in>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
While the command interpreter may be able to disambiguate the meaning,
the reader is not helped by being forced to do so.
Pull request: #48
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
User Kasijjuf points out the VFS initialism is not explained anywhere.
While this could be fixed, the whole note about inability to delete the
device by which the filesystem has been mounted, is wrong.
Issue: #49
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
While talking to another btrfs user on IRC today, it became clear that a
major point of confusion in the btrfs send manual is that it's not
telling the user soon enough that send/receive solely operates on
subvolume snapshots instead of the original (read/write) subvolumes.
So, change the first few lines to explicitly mention snapshots instead.
Technically, snapshots are also just subvolumes, but requiring this
level of technical detailed knowledge doesn't help the user who is just
trying out things.
Signed-off-by: Hans van Kranenburg <hans.van.kranenburg@mendix.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Reported by a wiki user, that there are formatting artifacts in the
'get' section:
in html rendered as "The -t <em><type></em> option can be..."
This is probably due to the nesting '' and <>. We don't need the <> in
the explanation, as this is only to describe the command line syntax.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Test that we are able to create an image from a multiple devices fs, that
we are able to restore that image into a single device and finally that we
are able to mount it.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
[ added shell quotation and chmod a+w so testsuite on NFS works ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
We correctly build an image from a multiple devices filesystem but when
restoring the image into a single device we were missing updating the
number of devices in the superblock to the value 1 (we already took care
of setting the number of stripes to 1 for each chunk item and setting
the device id for each chunk item to match the device id from the super
block).
This missing update of the number of devices makes it impossible to mount
the restored filesystem on recent kernels, more specifically since the
linux kernel commit 99e3ecfcb9f4ca35192d20a5bea158b81f600062
("Btrfs: add more validation checks for superblock"), that produce the
following message in the dmesg/syslog:
[21097.542047] BTRFS error (device sdi): super_num_devices 2 mismatch with num_devices 1 found here
[21097.543972] BTRFS error (device sdi): failed to read chunk tree: -22
[21097.720360] BTRFS error (device sdi): open_ctree failed
So fix this by updating the number of devices to 1 in the superblock.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Patches "btrfs-progs: tests: correctly receive clones to mounted subvol"
(8eaf63bc9a) and followup are missing last
unmount which leads to failure of misc/020.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Qu Wenruo