Hello,
The length of memset in btrfs_file_write is wrong.
--
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index 5070810..e67f8d4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@ -1094,7 +1094,7 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_file_write(struct file
*file, const char __user *buf,
on 01/01/2009 01:49 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
>> +if (block_count < 256*1024*1024) {
>> +fprintf(stderr, "File system size is
>> too small\n");
>> +exit(1);
>> +}
>
> And p
On Saturday 03 January 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > Actually a lot of the ioctl API don't just need documentation but
> > a complete redo. That's true at least for the physical device
> > management and subvolume / snaphot ones.
> >
>
> The ioctl interface is definitely not finalized. Adding
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:21:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The -rt tree has adaptive spin patches for the rtmutex code, its really
> not all that hard to do -- the rtmutex code is way more tricky than the
> regular mutexes due to all the PI fluff.
>
> For kernel only locking the simple rule
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 12:17 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > - locking.c needs a lot of cleanup.
> > If combination spinlocks/mutexes are really a win they should be
> > in the generic mutex framework. And I'm still dubious on the
> hardcoded
> > numbers.
>
> I don't think this needs to be clean
On January 4, 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> > One possibility would be to mimic ext4 and register the fs as "btrfsdev"
> > until it's considered stable enough for production. I agree with the
> > consensus that we want to use the upstream kernel as a nexus for
> > coordinating btrfs devel
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Monday 08 December 2008 04:44:01 Niraj Kumar wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:01:11AM +0800, Yan Zheng wrote:
>> > 2008/12/8 Niraj kumar :
>> >
>> > Please execute 'btrfsctl -a' before mount.
>
> How does this play nice with root p
Hi
> One possibility would be to mimic ext4 and register the fs as "btrfsdev"
> until it's considered stable enough for production. I agree with the
> consensus that we want to use the upstream kernel as a nexus for
> coordinating btrfs development, so I don't think it's worth waiting a
> release
On Monday 08 December 2008 04:44:01 Niraj Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:01:11AM +0800, Yan Zheng wrote:
> > 2008/12/8 Niraj kumar :
> >
> > Please execute 'btrfsctl -a' before mount.
How does this play nice with root partitions that are planned to be btrfs?
Regards,
Christian.
--
To u
Hi Chris,
Does this means that disk format finalised or at least backward
compatible?
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 06:28 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I've done some testing against Linus' git tree from last night and the
> current btrfs trees still work well.
>
> There are a few bug
10 matches
Mail list logo
