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 th
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:07:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs t
On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we
>>> aren't
>>> breaking things with our patches. The
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we
> > aren't
> > breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is
> > btrf
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we
> aren't
> breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is
> btrfsck.
> This patch gets things started by adding a basic btrfsck test tha
We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we aren't
breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is btrfsck.
This patch gets things started by adding a basic btrfsck test that makes sure we
can fix a corruption problem we know we can fix. Thanks,
