On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we
aren't
breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is
btrfsck.
This patch gets things started by adding a basic btrfsck test that
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we
aren't
breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is
btrfsck.
On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we
aren't
breaking things with our patches. The most
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:07:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:57:17PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:07:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
David might have meant 001-bad-file-extent-bytenr.img though.
Oh yeah that may be good then.
Yes that's what I meant. I thought
We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we aren't
breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is btrfsck.
This patch gets things started by adding a basic btrfsck test that makes sure we
can fix a corruption problem we know we can fix.
