On 7/9/20 10:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:46 PM pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However as I look at the journal it's not
clear if this is a problem or if we need to update the testcase for
btrfs. I've attached the journal file for your reading pleasure.
This is a good point. The testcase needs two updates. The one
previously mentioned which is not an fs journal recovery but about
raid6 recovery algorithm, which we can ignore.
The part of this I don't understand is how is btrfs a raid6 on a system
with only one physical disk drive? I thought raid6 required two separate
physical disk drives.
But one to add is now
btrfs now indicates it wasn't previously unmounted successfully.
[ 9.401852] BTRFS info (device vda3): start tree-log replay
Okay so I guess we leave the test alone for those running ext4 and add a
test in the same test case document for those running btrfs. Is that
right? Or would we drop the ext4 stuff since it would no longer be the
"supported" fs and rewrite the test case to be for btrfs only?
I foresee the need to a Fedora Magazine article to help people get
started doing the btrfs maintenance.
Have a Great Day!
Pat (tablepc)
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
