This has been causing a lot of confusion for quite a while now and a lot
of users were surprised by this (some of them were even stuck in a
ENOSPC situation which they couldn't easily get out of). The addition
of restriper gives users a clear choice between raid0 and drive concat
setup so there's absolutely no excuse for us to keep doing this.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryo...@gmail.com>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 37e0a80..e0969eb 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -7029,7 +7029,6 @@ static u64 update_block_group_flags(struct btrfs_root
*root, u64 flags)
if (flags & (BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1 |
BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10))
return stripped | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP;
- return flags;
} else {
/* they already had raid on here, just return */
if (flags & stripped)
@@ -7042,9 +7041,9 @@ static u64 update_block_group_flags(struct btrfs_root
*root, u64 flags)
if (flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP)
return stripped | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1;
- /* turn single device chunks into raid0 */
- return stripped | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID0;
+ /* this is drive concat, leave it alone */
}
+
return flags;
}
--
1.7.6.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
