On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 11:25 +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > krzf83@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > # uname -a > > Linux dhcppc1 3.0.1-xxxx-std-ipv6-64 #1 SMP Sun Aug 14 17:06:21 CEST > > 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > mkdir test5 > > cd test5 > > dd if=/dev/null of=img5 bs=1 seek=2G > > dd if=/dev/null of=img6 bs=1 seek=2G > > losetup /dev/loop2 img5 > > losetup /dev/loop3 img6 > > mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop3 > > btrfs device scan > > btrfs filesystem show > > > > Label: none uuid: d7ba6c4e-04ed-49f5-88cd-8432c948e822 > > Total devices 2 FS bytes used 28.00KB > > devid 1 size 2.00GB used 437.50MB path /dev/loop4 > > devid 2 size 2.00GB used 417.50MB path /dev/loop5 > > > > mkdir dir > > mount -t btrfs /dev/loop2 dir > > umount dir > > losetup -d /dev/loop3 > > mount -t btrfs -o degraded /dev/loop2 dir > > > > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/loop2, > > missing codepage or other error > > In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try > > dmesg | tail or so > > It works on latest kernel (3.1.0-rc2) > > -- > Li Zefan Shouldn't we really really have some test case for this in the test suite? I mean it's kinda uaccepabtle even for an experimental system to brake this way in a release, also will there be backports? That would be helpful especially since some of the big distros will be stuck with 3.0 for months to come and this will (rightfully so) make btrfs look really bad! Greetings Nik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
