On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 06:43:49AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > +# Test if the superblock corruption is handled correctly: > > > +# - Test fsid miss-match (csum ok) between primary and copy > > > superblock > > > +# Fixed by the ML patch: > > > +# btrfs: check if the fsid in the primary sb and copy sb are same > > > +# - Test if the mount fails if the primary superblock csum is > > > +# corrupted on any disk > > > +# - Test if the mount does not fail if the copy1 sb csum is > > > corrupted > > > +# Fixed by the ML patches: > > > +# btrfs: verify superblock checksum during scan > > > +# btrfs: verify checksum for all devices in mount context > > > > Do you have a tree that I can pull from? I want to make sure the test > > does pass on patched kernel, but the patchset doesn't apply on v4.16 > > kernel. > > We have new discussions on whether to check for the alien-superblock and > the superblock-checksum at the mount and scan time respectively. And > depending on its outcome this test-case should be modified as well. So > can you please defer this fstest patch, for now, I shall send a revised > fstest patch when kernel patches gets integrated.
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll drop it for now. > > In any case, if you want to give a try, those patches are base on kdave repo > at [1]. > [1] > https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-devel.git misc-next Thanks! Eryu -- 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
