On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:11:20 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to
use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise they're
wrong.
Signed-off-by:
On 05/10/2013 13:20, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:11:20 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to
use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On 05/10/2013 13:20, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:11:20 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have
Quoting David Sterba (2013-05-06 17:11:20)
Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to
use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise they're
wrong.
The size coming in from the md should be correct. See this commit from
my integration branch
On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:11:20 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to
use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise they're
wrong.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
btrfs-image.c | 27
Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to
use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise they're
wrong.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
btrfs-image.c | 27 +++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
