Thank you all for your responses to my boot snapshot problem but it
still exists.
.
Hugo, you told me how to mount a snapshot. Thank you, that works but you
didn't tell me how to boot into it.
Anthony, I really hoped that you had provided the answer using grub but
all combinations of your suggesti
Hi,
As I like experimenting with file systems, and as lots of boot cds don't
have the latest kernel/userspace tools, I decided to create my own
bootcd for my personal use. As I think it could be interesting for other
people, I made it available at http://prrescue.prnet.org
Bye,
David Arendt
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:58:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 07:52:23 -0500:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > >
Hello btrfs people
btrfs still does not implement raid5,6 so here comes the question: all
filesystems have mkfs flags for aligning to an underlying RAID.
Is it there also for btrfs? I don't seem able to find it. Is it
autodetected for MD/LVM2 like in xfs and ext4?
I think that some people in the
Excerpts from Brian Sullivan's message of 2010-11-23 15:27:09 -0500:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Brian Sullivan's message of 2010-11-22 18:29:42 -0500:
> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Brian Sullivan
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:4
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Brian Sullivan's message of 2010-11-22 18:29:42 -0500:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Brian Sullivan wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:32:46AM -0500, Chris Mas
Currently we fail xfstest 236 because we're not updating the inode ctime on
link. This is a simple fix, and makes it so we pass 236 now. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/
There are two big problems currently with FIEMAP
1) We return extents for holes. This isn't supposed to happen, we just don't
return extents for holes and then userspace interprets the lack of an extent as
a hole.
2) We sometimes don't set FIEMAP_EXTENT_LAST properly. This is because we wait
to
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 07:52:23 -0500:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > >
> > > Avoid both these issues by issuing completely asynchronous writeb
On Tue 23-11-10 19:07:58, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 19-11-10 16:16:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:45:52AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 17-11-10 22:28:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > The fact that a
On Tue 23-11-10 21:11:49, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The issue of writeback_inodes_sb being synchronous so far as it has to
> wait until the work has been dequeued is another subtlety. That is a
> funny interface though, really. It has 3 callers, sync, quota, and
> ubifs. From a quick look, quota and ubi
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:02:39 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Taking s_umount lock inside i_mutex can result in an ABBA deadlock:
>
> ===
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.37-rc3+ #26
> ---
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >
> > Avoid both these issues by issuing completely asynchronous writeback
> > request in
> > writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle. Don't let that fool you int
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
[ ... ]
>
> Avoid both these issues by issuing completely asynchronous writeback request
> in
> writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle. Don't let that fool you into thinking these
> functions don't suck any more.
>
> ext4 now passes extens
On 11/23/2010 12:54 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> *
>>> * Invoke writeback_inodes_sb if no writeback is currently underway.
>>> * Returns 1 if writeback was started, 0 if not.
>>> + *
>>> + * Even if 1 is returned, writeback may not
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > *
> > * Invoke writeback_inodes_sb if no writeback is currently underway.
> > * Returns 1 if writeback was started, 0 if not.
> > + *
> > + * Even if 1 is returned, writeback may not be started if memory allocation
> > + * fail
On 11/23/2010 12:02 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Taking s_umount lock inside i_mutex can result in an ABBA deadlock:
>
> ===
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.37-rc3+ #26
>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:02:39PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> int writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> if (!writeback_in_progress(sb->s_bdi)) {
> - down_read(&sb->s_umount);
> - writeback_inodes_sb(sb);
> - up_read(&sb->s_umount);
>
Taking s_umount lock inside i_mutex can result in an ABBA deadlock:
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.37-rc3+ #26
---
append_writer/12828 is trying to acquire
Here is another one. Both i_mutex in writeback and s_umount in write(2)
underneath i_mutex seem like an interesting idea. The former you can
probably get away with (provided you solve the previous AA deadlock),
but the latter seems too problematic. I think my trylock patch solves
it.
[ 409.479214
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 19-11-10 16:16:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:45:52AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 17-11-10 22:28:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The fact that a call to ->write_begin can randomly return with s_umount
21 matches
Mail list logo