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 the number could be useful as a shortcut additional to the human-readable part. > > > Yeah I wasn't sure how I wanted to do this. At first I thought about > > > making the > > > fsck tester just make a loop device, but I didn't want to override > > > something if > > > people were already using a loop device. But maybe I'll just default to > > > using > > > loop5 or something big like that and then if the user wants to change it > > > they > > > can go into the script and change it themselves. How does that sound? > > > Thanks, > > > > Dumb question, can you just point btrfsck at the image itself w/o setting up > > loopback? i.e. do something like: > > > > # btrfs-image -r 001-bad-file-extent-bytenr.img test.img > > # btrfsck --repair test.img > > Huh, I'm not sure...yes it looks like it, well that solves that problem. > Thanks, If you need a blockdevice, you can use $ losetup -f /the/file (get a free loopdev) $ losetup -j /the/file /dev/loop2: ... and parse the loop name from the output. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
