From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:44096 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751920Ab3CVDFg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:05:36 -0400 Message-ID: <514BCAB1.6040608@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:06:25 +0800 From: Anand Jain MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Sandeen CC: Jon Nelson , linux-btrfs Subject: Re: btrfs-show vs. btrfs different output References: <514B232E.2050705@redhat.com> <514B346D.1010403@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <514B346D.1010403@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > What we really need is the right bits in the right places > to let the administrator know if a device looks like it might > be corrupt & in need of fixing, vs. ignoring it altogether. -- > 2. the current git btrfs-show and btrfs fi show both output > *different* devices for device with UUID > b5dc52bd-21bf-4173-8049-d54d88c82240, and they're both wrong. -- here per Jon experience showing stale btrfs on /dev/sdb (note that good btrfs is on /dev/sdb3) is wrong. More over when we show something like /dev/sdb and /dev/sdb3 both have two different btrfs, its a bit scary. I would vote for ignoring it altogether since we have btrfs-find-root and btrfs-select-super to help find the backup SB for recovery if needed. Thanks. -Anand