Critically we don't need this patch. right ? Anyway user of replace cli can use devid if device read fails.
> Yes, I agree it.
I think David is talking about: [PATCH] device delete by devid it was critical for device delete. since there wasn't device delete by devid. I used device delete by devid instead of device path strcmp mainly because to maintain consistency between device replace and delete. the above patch set also provides code cleanups between device replace and delete codes.
> We can delete the device by devid on behalf of "btrfs_find_device". yes. patch-set (above) uses btrfs_find_device for device delete now. replace was already using it. > In my opinion, the dev path is easier and humanized to use. yes. good to have. in the long run. But not a regression/critical. this will conflict with my patch, can you rebase on top of above path which has some cleanups in this area as well. > This was OK before, but now I can not replace offline device > by path. > So I consider it as a regression. You mean to say you could replace the offline device using the device path before (not devid) and now you can't ? Then what patch introduced the regression ? Do you see any older version replace working with offline device using the device path ? Thanks, Anand -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
