On 2018年02月01日 15:08, Su Yue wrote:
>
>
> On 02/01/2018 02:45 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Since we're moving tons of codes, it's a good idea to fix all errors and
[snip]
>> }
>> @@ -2500,7 +2507,8 @@ static int repair_extent_data_item(struct
>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git
current-work
head: 055b23681aedfe6c6a9da010a57b3d6d9167f882
commit: 055b23681aedfe6c6a9da010a57b3d6d9167f882 [2/2] current-work
config: xtensa-allyesconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: xtensa-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.2.0
re
On 02/01/2018 02:45 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Since we're moving tons of codes, it's a good idea to fix all errors and
warnings from checkpatch.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
check/lowmem.c | 65 +--
check/main.c | 253 +
2
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git
current-work
head: 055b23681aedfe6c6a9da010a57b3d6d9167f882
commit: 055b23681aedfe6c6a9da010a57b3d6d9167f882 [2/2] current-work
config: m68k-allyesconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: m68k-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 7.2.0-
As usual, the main part is over 500K so the biggest patch won't reach
mail list.
Please fetch the whole branch from github:
https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs/tree/split_check
This update rebased (the truth is, it's re-created other than rebase)
the branch to David's devel branch, whose hea
Since we're moving tons of codes, it's a good idea to fix all errors and
warnings from checkpatch.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
check/lowmem.c | 65 +--
check/main.c | 253 +
2 files changed, 165 insertions(+), 153 deletions(
There used to be some functions with _v2 suffix to distinguish them from
original mode similar functions.
However now moved lowmem code to their own check/lowmem.[ch], cleanup
such _v2 suffixes, and for functions really needs to be distinguished
from original mode (exported functions), change the
On 1/31/18 7:36 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 01/31/2018 09:42 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
So usually this should be functionality handled by the raid/san
controller I guess, > but given that btrfs is playing the role of a
controller here at what point are we drawing the line
On 2018年02月01日 02:26, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 01:37:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> The long planned cmds-check re-construction is finally here.
>>
>> As the original cmds-check.c is getting larger and larger (already over
>> 15K lines), it's always a good idea to split it i
Fstests generic/475 provides a way to fail metadata reads while
checking if checksum exists for the inode inside run_delalloc_nocow(),
and csum_exist_in_range() interprets error (-EIO) as inode having
checksum and makes its caller enters the cow path.
In case of free space inode, this ends up with
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 01:37:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The long planned cmds-check re-construction is finally here.
>
> As the original cmds-check.c is getting larger and larger (already over
> 15K lines), it's always a good idea to split it into its own check/
> directory.
>
> This patchse
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 08:46 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> > up for this cycle.
>
> Done.
>
Thanks...and also many thanks for spotting the original issue. I agre
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> up for this cycle.
Done.
I wonder if "false for same, true for different" calling convention
makes much sense, but it matches the old "0 for same" so obviously
makes f
ok, i understood the commitmessage as if the behavior for tests is
more of a bonus
2018-01-30 7:30 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain :
> This __also__ helps testing
then it's clear to me. would only be good that this behavior is
documented. not that anyone else, like me, tries to use this as
performance tunin
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:40:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> There are 2 fsck tests with the same number 027:
> tree-reloc-tree
> bad-extent-inline-ref-type
>
> And we also have a hole in 015, so just rename tree-reloc-tree to 015,
> to get rid of the duplicated test number and fill in the hole.
>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> In function leaf_data_end, root is just used to get fs_info,
> so change the parameter of this function from btrfs_root to
> btrfs_fs_info.
> And also make it consistent with kernel.
>
> Changelog:
> v3->v2:
> Add const to parameter le
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 04:18:55PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年01月26日 15:25, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> > Patch 1~4 and 7: clean up use of btrfs_root.
> > Patch 5: remove redundancy value assignment.
> > Patch 6: remove no longer be used function define.
>
> Overall it looks good, just one s
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:36:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2018年01月26日 15:26, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> > In function leaf_data_end, root is just used to get fs_info,
> > so change the parameter of this function from btrfs_root to
> > btrfs_fs_info.
> > And also make it consistent with kernel.
> >
On 2018-01-31 09:52, Peter Becker wrote:
This is all clear. My question referes to "use the lower devid disk
containing the stripe"
2018-01-31 10:01 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain :
When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
use the lower devid disk containing the stripe (in
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:25:49AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> > This is trivially reproduced by running the test btrfs/027 from fstests
> > like this:
> >
> >$ MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o discard" ./check btrfs/027
> >
> > Fix this by skipping devices without a backing device before attempting
> > to d
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 06:20:45PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Function __get_raid_index() is used to convert block group flags into
> raid index, which can be used to get various info directly from
> btrfs_raid_array[].
>
> Refactor this function a little:
>
> 1) Rename to btrfs_bg_flags_to_raid_i
Essentially duplicate the error handling from the above block which
handles the !PageUptodate(page) case and additionally clear
EXTENT_BOUNDARY.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
---
V2:
* Remove unrelated whitespace fix
fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 18 --
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:16:34PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Cleanup the following things:
> 1) open coded SZ_16M round up
> 2) use min() to replace open-coded size comparison
> 3) code style
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Added to next, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:33:08AM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:22:09PM -0500, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> >Until v4.14, this warning was very infrequent:
> >
> > WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 18172 at fs/btrfs/backref.c:1391
> > find_parent_nodes+0xc41/0x14e0
> > Modules linked i
Hi,
a pre-release has been tagged.
The only significant change is removing the custom chunk allocator from mkfs
for the --rootdir option.
ETA for 4.15 is in +2 days (2018-02-02).
Changes:
* mkfs --rootdir reworked, does not minimize the final image but can be still
done using a new option --
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:53:38PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > This is an unrelated change. Please don't mix pure white
> > space/indentation changes with functional changes.
>
> David seems rather adamant in not accepting pure whitespace/indention
> changes on their own so I don't see a way
This is all clear. My question referes to "use the lower devid disk
containing the stripe"
2018-01-31 10:01 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain :
> When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
> use the lower devid disk containing the stripe (instead of failing back
> to the pid based
On 01/31/2018 09:42 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
So usually this should be functionality handled by the raid/san
controller I guess, > but given that btrfs is playing the role of a
controller here at what point are we drawing the line of not
implementing block-level functionality into the files
On 01/31/2018 06:47 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
2018-01-31 10:01 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain :
When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
use the lower devid disk containing the stripe (instead of failing back
to the pid based random disk).
Is this a good behavior? beaus
On 31.01.2018 15:38, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 01/31/2018 05:54 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31.01.2018 11:28, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2018 04:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
> Adds the mount option:
> mou
On 01/31/2018 05:54 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 31.01.2018 11:28, Anand Jain wrote:
On 01/31/2018 04:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
Adds the mount option:
mount -o read_mirror_policy=
To set the devid of the device which should be used for r
On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 12:53 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ack. Should I expect this in a future pull request, or take it directly?
>
> There's no hurry about this, since none of the existing users of that
> function actually do anything but test the return value against zero,
> and nobody saves i
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 31.01.2018 12:49, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> Essentially duplicate the error handling from the above block which
>>> handles the !PageUptodate(page) case and additionally cle
On 31.01.2018 12:49, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Essentially duplicate the error handling from the above block which
>> handles the !PageUptodate(page) case and additionally clear
>> EXTENT_BOUNDARY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
>> R
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Essentially duplicate the error handling from the above block which
> handles the !PageUptodate(page) case and additionally clear
> EXTENT_BOUNDARY.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
> ---
>
> Put description o
2018-01-31 10:01 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain :
> When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
> use the lower devid disk containing the stripe (instead of failing back
> to the pid based random disk).
Is this a good behavior? beause this would eliminate every performance
benefi
On 31.01.2018 11:28, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 01/31/2018 04:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
>>> Adds the mount option:
>>> mount -o read_mirror_policy=
>>>
>>> To set the devid of the device which should be used for read. That
>>> means all the
On 01/31/2018 04:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
Adds the mount option:
mount -o read_mirror_policy=
To set the devid of the device which should be used for read. That
means all the normal reads will go to that particular device only.
This also helps
On 01/31/2018 04:06 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index 1a462ab85c49..4759e988b0df 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -1100,6 +1100,8 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
spinlock_t ref_verify_lock;
struct rb_root block_tr
On 01/31/2018 03:51 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
A little question about mount -o read_mirror_policy=.
How would this work with RAID1 over 3 or 4 HDD's?
In particular, if the desired block is not available on device .
When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
use the
Currently btrfs_run_qgroups is doing a bit too much. Not only is it
responsible for synchronizing in-memory state of qgroups to disk but
it also contains code to trigger the initial qgroup rescan when
quota is enabled initially. This condition is detected by checking that
BTRFS_FS_QUOTA_ENABLED is
On 2018年01月31日 15:35, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 31.01.2018 07:56, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> When checking the minimal nr_devs, there is one dead and meaningless
>> condition:
>>
>> if (ndevs < devs_increment * sub_stripes || ndevs < devs_min) {
>>
>>
>>
On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
> Adds the mount option:
> mount -o read_mirror_policy=
>
> To set the devid of the device which should be used for read. That
> means all the normal reads will go to that particular device only.
>
> This also helps testing and gives a better control for
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org]
> On Behalf Of Qu Wenruo
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:17 PM
> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; dste...@suse.cz
> Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: volumes: Cleanup stripe size calcu
On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
> In case of RAID1 and RAID10 devices are mirror-ed, a read IO can
> pick any device for reading. This choice of picking a device for
> reading should be configurable. In short not one policy would
> satisfy all types of workload and configs.
>
> So before
45 matches
Mail list logo