Re: [PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:52:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > I understand that we need to do corruption so that we can test if the > > > repair works, but I'm not sure if the output format will change, or if > > > the program will get replace by "btrfs inspect-internal" group. > > > > In

Re: [PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

At 04/12/2017 08:52 PM, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:32:02PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:35:00AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 04/12/2017 09:27 AM, Liu Bo wrote: A typical use case of 'btrfs-map-logical' is to translate btrfs logical address to

Re: [PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:32:02PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:35:00AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > At 04/12/2017 09:27 AM, Liu Bo wrote: > > > A typical use case of 'btrfs-map-logical' is to translate btrfs logical > > > address to physical address on each

Re: [PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:35:00AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 04/12/2017 09:27 AM, Liu Bo wrote: > > A typical use case of 'btrfs-map-logical' is to translate btrfs logical > > address to physical address on each disk. > > Could we avoid usage of btrfs-map-logical here? Agreed. > I

Re: [PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

At 04/12/2017 09:27 AM, Liu Bo wrote: A typical use case of 'btrfs-map-logical' is to translate btrfs logical address to physical address on each disk. Could we avoid usage of btrfs-map-logical here? I understand that we need to do corruption so that we can test if the repair works, but

[PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

A typical use case of 'btrfs-map-logical' is to translate btrfs logical address to physical address on each disk. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo --- common/config | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/common/config b/common/config index 59041a3..b7c06bf 100644 ---