On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this. > > But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling > back on an "invisible" 1?
How does it know what the user expects? I think the issue is not with the resize command, but rather the replace command does not include the resize max operation. Presumably the user intends the entire block device provided as the target for replacement to be used. So I think the mistake is replace assumes the user wants to use the same amount of space as the former block device. I think if the user wanted to use the former block device size on the new block device, they'd partition it and use the partition as the target. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
