On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:11:45PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
nice, didn't know about this. Such functionality would be nice to have.
But then I don't think that a recreate the array if the parameters are the
same is actually a good idea, lots of space for error. A pair of functions:
btrfs
On Wednesday 09 of May 2012 19:18:07 David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:11:45PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
nice, didn't know about this. Such functionality would be nice to have.
But then I don't think that a recreate the array if the parameters are
the
same is actually a good
On Wednesday 02 of May 2012 19:36:29 David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:42:16PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
I'm not sure if this is useful and sensible usecase, clearing superblock
is a one-time action anyway, so it's more for the sake of tool
flexibility.
Clearing
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:40:29PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
+static const char * const cmd_zero_dev_usage[] = {
+ btrfs device zero-superblock device [device ...],
FYI, this step is named 'clear superblock' in kernel code as done after the
device is removed, and I suggest to consider to
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:28:43PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I had prototyped a similar utility (in perl, so nothing for progs
inclusion for now)
attached.
david
#!/usr/bin/perl
# clear btrfs signature from a device
use Fcntl;
use constant BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET = 64 * 1024;
use constant
On Wednesday 02 of May 2012 16:28:43 David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:40:29PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
+static const char * const cmd_zero_dev_usage[] = {
+ btrfs device zero-superblock device [device ...],
FYI, this step is named 'clear superblock' in kernel code as done
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:42:16PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
A similar function in mdadm is called zero superblock so I just re used the
name (according to the principle of least surprise). Users, even admins,
generally don't read kernel code...
I intended to point out that the
