From: Christian Parpart
I rebased Christian Parpart's patch to deny hard link across
subvolumes. Original patch modifies also btrfs_rename, but
I excluded it because we can move across subvolumes now and
it make no problem.
-
Hard link across subvolumes should not allowed in Btr
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > >
>> >
# for i in `seq 1 20`; do btrfsck /dev/sde|grep "checksum verify
failed";echo; done
checksum verify failed on 31945617408 wanted 6607632D found 9CC3ED0
checksum verify failed on 31945617408 wanted 6607632D found AFBBF41
checksum verify failed on 31945617408 wanted 6607632D found A4F0ED0
checksum v
Thank you for the review.
I did not notice that lock_chunks() is a locking function.
I am using my own static analysis for finding bugs.
As I register lock_chunks() as a locking functions,
the bug alarm is disappeared.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 a
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Zach Brown wrote:
> > I like this much more than providing a journal start/stop to userland.
> > If we can get Christoph to ack the exports we can work on the interface
> > in general.
>
> I'll note, briefly, that it seems dangerous to call right into the sys_
> functions inst
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:01:43AM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I re-orderred the checks to avoid dereferencing "em" if it was null.
Thanks, I've put this into the master branch of the btrfs unstable tree.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the bo
Hello everyone,
The master branch of the btrfs-unstable repo has an assortment of fixes
and speedups.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git master
These are mostly minor fixes, but there is an important fix for using
btrfs and ceph together. Josef has a block gr
> I like this much more than providing a journal start/stop to userland.
> If we can get Christoph to ack the exports we can work on the interface
> in general.
I'll note, briefly, that it seems dangerous to call right into the sys_
functions instead of going through the architecture's syscall nu
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > This is an alternative approach to atomic user transacti
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:07:05AM +0900, 홍신 shin hong wrote:
> Hello. I am reporting possible data race
> due to the the absence of memory barriers.
>
> I reported a similar issue. Although the previous one turns out to be safe,
> please examine this issue and let me know your opinion.
>
> In bt
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:41:06PM +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> >> I hadn't looked into this before, but I think the snapshots could be used
> >> to achieve both atomicity and rollback. If userspace uses an rw mutex to
> >> quiesce writes, it can make sure all transactions complete before creatin
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > This is an alternative approach to atomic user tran
Hello. I am reporting possible data race
due to the the absence of memory barriers.
I reported a similar issue. Although the previous one turns out to be safe,
please examine this issue and let me know your opinion.
In btrfs_init_new_device(), a btrfs_device object is allocated and initialized
an
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This is an alternative approach to atomic user transactions for btrfs.
> > > The old start/end ioctls suffer fr
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is an alternative approach to atomic user transactions for btrfs.
> The old start/end ioctls suffer from some basic limitations, namely
>
> - We can't properly reserve space ahead of time to avoid ENOSPC part
> way
15 matches
Mail list logo