On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:52:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > I understand that we need to do corruption so that we can test if the > > > repair works, but I'm not sure if the output format will change, or if > > > the program will get replace by "btrfs inspect-internal" group. > > > > In the long-term it will be repleaced, but there's no ETA. > > Possibly, if fstests maintainer agrees, we can add btrfs-map-logical to > fstests. It's small and uses headers from libbtrfs, so this would become > a new dependency but I believe is still bearable. IMHO, I think the ability to poke btrfs internal really should be provided by btrfs-progs package and maintained by btrfs community. fstests provides some fs-independent c helpers to assist testing, but not necessarily needs to "understand" filesystem internals. For historical reason, building fstests requires xfsprogs development headers, we'd better not introduce new fs-specific dependencies. Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
