From: Liu Bo
This bug is introduced by commit 3b8bde746f6f9bd36a9f05f5f3b6e334318176a9
(Btrfs: lock extents as we map them in DIO).
In dio write, we should unlock the section which we didn't do IO on in case that
we fall back to buffered write. But we need to not only unlock the section
but als
Since btrfs does not do recursive atomic snapshots (which I am ok with),
I am doing this myself. A handful of suggestions/problems came up.
1. Maybe btrfsprogs could gain an option to do recursive non-atomic
snapshots at the userspace level, simply invoking low-level atomic
snapshots one by one?
Hi
The full output of the btrfs-debug-tree is 190MB compressed, did you
want it still ?
As far as the conditions, I was running a repo sync which I had
CTRL-Z, I then got distracted and mistakenly started the sync again
(not sure if you are familiar with repo command, it spawns git
processes to c
Hi,
a few minor style comments,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 06:11:14PM +0800, bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -5993,10 +5993,24 @@ unlock:
>* in the case of read we need to unlock only the end area that we
>* aren't using if there is
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:23:48AM -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
> A patch to add support for `btrfs fi defrag -c none ` or so would
> make this easier, and shouldn't be to hard to do :)
This one is on my list of 'nice to have', it's needed to extend the
ioctl to understand 'none' as to actually use
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > What does the 'ret' shows? Is it -ENOSPC?
>
> I got nothing else in my logs.
Unless it was a second error from a filesystem that went RO, there
should be more than the "Failed to join transaction" message, and the
first occurence o
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:20:36PM -0500, Peter Marheine wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running btrfs in a 3-disk RAID1 configuration. After a hard
> power-off, I'm seeing a lot of hung I/O tasks on this volume,
> apparently due to a corrupt leaf. I first noticed the problem on
> kernel 3.4.7, and it's
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:28:22PM -0400, dg1727 wrote:
> Thanks a lot for these answers. As an exercise, how would I track
> that patch so I can tell when it has been released? Pointing me to
> a webpage that covers this would be fine.
You can easily check that the patch appears in the main
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:50:58AM -0700, Not Zippy wrote:
> Thanks for the analysis, unfortunately I get the same assert error
> when I attempt to run the repair from the compiled source.
>
> # ./work/builds/btrfs-progs/btrfsck
> usage: btrfsck dev
> Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
'git describe' would be mor
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:29:53PM +0800, Anand jain wrote:
> From: Anand Jain
>
> btrfs f l /
> No valid Btrfs found on /
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Patches fixing this have been sent like 4 times, last one was from
Alexander's 'btrfs prop', that modified it a bit more (to return the
la
It is well documented that btrfs data recovery (after silent corruption)
is dependent on the use of btrfs's own RAID1.
However, I'm curious about whether any hardware RAID vendors are
contemplating ways to integrate more closely with btrfs, for example,
such that when btrfs detects a bad checks
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:21:50PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> as suggested on the mailing list I have converted the updated LZO
> code into git, so please pull my "lzo-update" branch from
...
> [ Changes in v2: Optimize code for CPUs with inefficient unaligned
> access => significant
From: Liu Bo
This bug is introduced by commit 3b8bde746f6f9bd36a9f05f5f3b6e334318176a9
(Btrfs: lock extents as we map them in DIO).
In dio write, we should unlock the section which we didn't do IO on in case that
we fall back to buffered write. But we need to not only unlock the section
but als
13 matches
Mail list logo
