On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Anand Jain <Anand.Jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>> 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. Oh, sorry, my fault. NOT regression, It should always be the srcdevid. I confused with another stuff. Thanks, George > > 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
