Hi, Chris and Oliva
On thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:39:55 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus
Has our current set of fixes. This is fairly small, Alexandre Oliva has
been chasing problems in our block allocator and kicked out
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 04:36:44PM +0200, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote:
unfortunately i was wrong. rc4 does not fix this issue for me when
rsyncing large amounts of data...
my mount options:
mount -o loop,compress=zlib,compress-force btrfs_test /storage/btrfs
the filesystem is a file on a
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:10:49PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Hi, Chris and Oliva
On thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:39:55 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
for-linus
Has our current set of fixes. This is fairly small, Alexandre Oliva has
if the to-be-added device is writable
Liu Bo: Btrfs: drop spin lock when memory alloc fails
(collected in branch fixes-20111205 at my repo)
I overlooked them and forgot to include in the fixes branch before the
last pull request, sorry.
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:50:39PM +0100, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/12/2 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
We've been seeing warnings coming out of the orphan commit stuff forever
from
ceph. Turns out it's because we're racing with checking if the orphan block
reserve is set, because we
The advantage of kcalloc is, that will prevent integer overflows which could
result from the multiplication of number of elements and size and it is also
a bit nicer to read.
The semantic patch that makes this change is available
in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/25/107
Signed-off-by: Thomas
hi everybody
i recently switched from a 3.1 kernel to 3.2rc4 from fedora rawhide.
since i switched i am having serious performance isues, mainly due to
my limmited cpu (1.6Ghz attom single core)
when i boot in 3.1 my bootup is mainly I/O limited (according to bootchart)
when i boot in 3.2 my
On 11/10/2011 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Instead of preventing the removal of devices that would render existing
raid10 or raid1 impossible, warn but go ahead with it; the rebalancing
code is smart enough to use different block group types.
Should the refusal remain, so that we'd only
On mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:49:16 +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
While running xfstest 013 with Chris' for-linus on an ssd I hit this the
following bug. Before, the system was freshly bootet and all I did was
insmod and starting ./check in the xfstests directory. I cannot
reproduce it so far:
Dec 5
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:14:13 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:10:49PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Hi, Chris and Oliva
On thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:39:55 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
for-linus
Has our current set of
writeback_in_progress() is very simple, and we will use writeback_in_progress()
in the module, so make it inline.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 12
include/linux/backing-dev.h | 12 +++-
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+),
The reason the deadlock is that:
Task Btrfs-cleaner
umount()
down_write(s-s_umount)
close_ctree()
wait for the end of
btrfs-cleaner
start_transaction
reserve
+void btrfs_writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct btrfs_root *root,
+ unsigned long nr_pages)
+{
+ struct super_block *sb = root-fs_info-sb;
+
+ if (writeback_in_progress(sb-s_bdi))
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * If we can not get s_umount, it
cc Fengguang
cc Linux-kernel
On tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:35:45 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
writeback_in_progress() is very simple, and we will use
writeback_in_progress()
in the module, so make it inline.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 12
On tue, 6 Dec 2011 05:49:06 +, Al Viro wrote:
+void btrfs_writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct btrfs_root *root,
+ unsigned long nr_pages)
+{
+struct super_block *sb = root-fs_info-sb;
+
+if (writeback_in_progress(sb-s_bdi))
+return;
+
+
15 matches
Mail list logo
