On 01/18/2011 04:22 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Felix Blankefelixbla...@gmail.com wrote:
i don't know about the readonly snapshots, but the LZO stuff is a
mount option; should be in the pull.
and for the record, i'm totally stoked to run LZO on all my
于 2011-1-19 14:27, Yang Ruirui 写道:
Boot with meego kernel 2.6.35.9-6.5-adaptation-n900 on n900, an oops happend, I
see similar reporting in lkml:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/26/103
I just happened once, so I don't know hot to reproduce it.
`addr2line -e vmlinux 0xc0197888` show
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:08:13PM +0800, Liuwenyi wrote:
In Yang Ruirui's mail, the btrfs will create a oops. This is caused by a
null pointer in test_range_bit() while lock the spinlock.
So, It is necessary to add a pointer check into test_range_bit()
NAK, the tree shouldn't be null
The checksums array is unused, remove it. We only need disk_crcs array
to verify checksums.
There is no need to allocate first_page_offset bytes for disk_crcs
array. It's enough to allocate num_checksums bytes because disk_crcs
only holds checksums while gen pointer is computed and used
Excerpts from Josef Bacik's message of 2011-01-19 09:14:02 -0500:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:08:13PM +0800, Liuwenyi wrote:
In Yang Ruirui's mail, the btrfs will create a oops. This is caused by a
null pointer in test_range_bit() while lock the spinlock.
So, It is necessary to add a
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 06:58:37PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
I messed up size argument of kzalloc() and consequently memcpy(). Here
is an updated version.
The checksums array is unused, remove it. We only need disk_crcs array
to verify checksums.
There is no need to allocate
Minimizes the number of (sizeof(u32) * num_checksums) we have to do,
removes now useless first_page_offset variable.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 12 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:19:24PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
Minimizes the number of (sizeof(u32) * num_checksums) we have to do,
removes now useless first_page_offset variable.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
Thanks,
Josef
--
To
Excerpts from Paul Komkoff's message of 2011-01-19 14:58:28 -0500:
Hello.
[root@botva incoming]# btrfs fi defrag file-350mb
[root@botva incoming]# filefrag file-350mb
file-350mb: 132 extents found
The defrag code doesn't actually defrag. It opens up the file and
recows all the extents and
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
It would be much more valuable if those 3.5 seconds were available to
devices which really really care about bootup times, but very few of
those devices use rotating disks nowadays, I expect?
And don't rotating
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
The defrag code doesn't actually defrag. It opens up the file and
recows all the extents and then the delayed allocation code jumps in and
makes the biggest possible extent that it can.
The reason why you're still
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:33 +0800, David Nicol wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
It would be much more valuable if those 3.5 seconds were available to
devices which really really care about bootup times, but very few of
those devices
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 04:41 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:15:18 +0800
Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
Subject: add metadata_incore ioctl in vfs
Add an ioctl to dump filesystem's metadata in memory in vfs. Userspace
collects
such info and uses it to do
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:48:33 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 10:42 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:30:47 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
I don't know if this is worth addressing. Perhaps require that the
filp refers
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 11:05 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:48:33 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 10:42 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:30:47 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com
wrote:
I don't know if
I saw a lockdep report with an instrumented 2.6.38-rc1 kernel [1].
Checking the code, it looks more likely a false-positive due to the
lock manipulation to satisfy lockdep, since CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is
defined.
Is this the case?
Thanks,
Daniel
--- [1]
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:21:49 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
It seems to return a single offset/length tuple which refers to the
btrfs metadata file, with the intent that this tuple later be fed
into a btrfs-specific readahead ioctl.
I can see how this might be used with
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:38:18 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
ext2, minix and probably others create an address_space for each
directory. Heaven knows what xfs does (for example).
yes, this is for one directiory, but the all files's metadata are in
block_dev address_space.
I
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:44:57PM +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 12:41 +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 08:10:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:21:49 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com
wrote:
It seems to return a
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:38:18 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
ext2, minix and probably others create an address_space for each
directory. Heaven knows what xfs does (for example).
yes, this is for one directiory, but
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:12:33 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:38:18 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com wrote:
ext2, minix and probably others create an address_space for each
directory.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:19:50 +0800 Wu Fengguang fengguang...@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:12:33PM +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:38:18 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com
wrote:
ext2,
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 14:19 +0800, Wu, Fengguang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:12:33PM +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:38:18 +0800 Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com
wrote:
ext2, minix and probably others
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:37:37PM +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 14:19 +0800, Wu, Fengguang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:12:33PM +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:38:18 +0800 Shaohua Li
24 matches
Mail list logo
