Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: meet btrfs fs size requirement in _scratch_mkfs_sized()

2011-11-03 Thread Eryu Guan
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:38:04AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: >> btrfs requires at least 256M file system size, so check 'fssize' in >> _scratch_mkfs_sized first and give it a proper value. Otherwise >> mkfs.btrfs will complain something like

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: meet btrfs fs size requirement in _scratch_mkfs_sized()

2011-11-03 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:38:04AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > btrfs requires at least 256M file system size, so check 'fssize' in > _scratch_mkfs_sized first and give it a proper value. Otherwise > mkfs.btrfs will complain something like > > "File system size 267386880 bytes is too small, 256M is r

Re: understanding the tree-log

2011-11-03 Thread Liu Bo
On 11/04/2011 11:21 AM, Phillip Susi wrote: > Given how a transaction is committed, why is there a tree-log? When > modifying the tree, either the super block is still pointing to the > old tree root, or the new generation has been fully committed, so how > can there ever be an intermediate state

understanding the tree-log

2011-11-03 Thread Phillip Susi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Given how a transaction is committed, why is there a tree-log? When modifying the tree, either the super block is still pointing to the old tree root, or the new generation has been fully committed, so how can there ever be an intermediate state that

Unable to resize btrfs filesystem

2011-11-03 Thread Jordan Windsor
Hello, I'm currently running Linux 3.0.7 (release "-1" under Arch 64bit) and btrfs-progs-unstable 0.19.20101006-1, I'm trying to resize my btrfs filesystem on /dev/sdb6, the partition has the room to allow expansion here's the output of "btrfs fi sh": failed to read /dev/sr0 Label: none uuid: db

Re: Warnings and crash

2011-11-03 Thread Mitch Harder
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:02:31AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: >> This one happened again, exactly same sequence of warnings and the crash >> at the end (same stack traces). It was in integration-scrub branch, ie. >> with all fixes on top. >> >>

Re: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:305

2011-11-03 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
(2011/11/03 20:19), Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:25:23AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: >> In integration-scrub branch, following warning messages were displayed by >> running xfstests. >> >> # btrfs fi sh /dev/sdd4 >> Label: none uuid: 8f28d85c-e37c-4c1b-adef-2627ca59be78 >>

Re: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:305

2011-11-03 Thread Chris Mason
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:25:23AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: > In integration-scrub branch, following warning messages were displayed by > running xfstests. > > # btrfs fi sh /dev/sdd4 > Label: none uuid: 8f28d85c-e37c-4c1b-adef-2627ca59be78 > Total devices 2 FS bytes used 31.49MB >

Re: [PATCH v8 1/8] btrfs: added helper functions to iterate backrefs

2011-11-03 Thread Jan Schmidt
On 03.11.2011 02:41, Li Zefan wrote: > (as this is going to be merged into mainline..) > >> +/* >> + * calls iterate() for every inode that references the extent identified by >> + * the given parameters. will use the path given as a parameter and return >> it >> + * released. >> + * when the ite

Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfstests 264: add a copy and reserve test

2011-11-03 Thread WuBo
On 11/03/2011 02:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 11:08:55AM +0800, WuBo wrote: >> This test is a stress test. It creates a set of threads for coping small >> files >> into disk. I use a 2G disk for test, the ENOSPC arises usually but the disk >> is >> not full under ke