On 2012年10月24日 17:44, Alex Lyakas wrote:
> Hi Wang,
> if you just look at the code in find_free_dev_extent():
> u64 search_start = 0;
> ...
> search_start = max((u64)1024 * 1024, search_start);
> if (root->fs_info->alloc_start + num_bytes <= device->total_bytes)
> search_start = max(root->fs
In find_and_setup_log_root, the malloced log_root would be leaked
if we have bytenr = 0, which would happen at our mkfs stage.
Move the memory allocation after the bytenr check, and add allocation
failure check.
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui
---
disk-io.c |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 inser
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:00:18 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 2012-10-22 13:38, Miao Xie wrote:
>> Step to reproduce:
>> # mkfs.btrfs
>> # mount -o user_subvol_rm_allowed
>> # mkdir /dir0
>> # chmod 777 /dir0
>> # btrfs sub snap /dir0/snap0
>> # su -c "btrfs sub del /dir0/snap0" -s
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:56:04AM +0530, raghu.prabh...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Raghavendra D Prabhu
>
> >From 51daa88ebd8e0d437289f589af29d4b39379ea76, page_sync_readahead coalesces
> async readahead into its readahead window, so another checking for that again
> is
> not required.
>
> Versi
On Oct 24, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 2012-10-24 21:13, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> It's an interesting solution, but difficult for a larger file system.
>> Or at least, could be very time consuming.
> It is not a solution but a workaround.
Understood.
>
>> Aside from th
On 2012-10-24 21:13, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I was able to reproduce it:
>>
>> - I filled the filesystem until I got "No space left on device".
>
> I didn't even need to get that far.
>
>
>> So it seems that I spread all t
From: Raghavendra D Prabhu
>From 51daa88ebd8e0d437289f589af29d4b39379ea76, page_sync_readahead coalesces
async readahead into its readahead window, so another checking for that again is
not required.
Version 2: Fixed the incorrect indentation.
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra D Prabhu
---
fs/btrfs/
Hi,
* On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:02:44PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:28:05AM +0530, raghu.prabh...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Raghavendra D Prabhu
>From 51daa88ebd8e0d437289f589af29d4b39379ea76, page_sync_read
On Oct 24, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>>
>
> I was able to reproduce it:
>
> - I filled the filesystem until I got "No space left on device".
I didn't even need to get that far.
> So it seems that I spread all the data to the other disk, filling up the
> smaller ones. So
On 2012-10-24 00:29, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
> wrote:
>
> I think it needs to be bigger. I was at a bit over 8GB file size for
> a 9GB file system (3x 3GB drives). There was about 300MB of free
> space left according to df -h, which was for the w
On 10/24/2012 06:53 PM, frantz.hacquard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if it's the good place to ask my question.
> I'm a french student who studies IT.
> I'm working on a project with the btrfs filesystem on Gentoo 64 bits.
> I have to create snapshots and to compare the differences between them
>
On 24/10/12, frantz.hacquard (frantz.hacqu...@ensi-bourges.fr) wrote:
> I don't know if it's the good place to ask my question.
> I'm a french student who studies IT.
> I'm working on a project with the btrfs filesystem on Gentoo 64 bits.
> I have to create snapshots and to compare the differences
On 10/22/2012 02:55 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:14:58AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
>> On 10/19/2012 04:01 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> Alex reported a problem where we were writing between chunks on a rbd
>>> device. The thing is we do bio_add_page using logical offsets, but th
On 10/24/2012 06:45 PM, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> get_old_root needs its lock on the root node only to clone that buffer.
> However, when we call read_tree_block, we know already that we're not
> going to clone the root node. Thus we can safely unlock before, to avoid
> issues where read_tree_block make
get_old_root needs its lock on the root node only to clone that buffer.
However, when we call read_tree_block, we know already that we're not
going to clone the root node. Thus we can safely unlock before, to avoid
issues where read_tree_block makes potentially sleeping allocations.
Signed-off-by:
Swami,
code is your friend again:)
#define I_ERR_FILE_NBYTES_WRONG (1 << 10) // 400
...
if (rec->found_size != rec->nbytes)
rec->errors |= I_ERR_FILE_NBYTES_WRONG;
>From what I recently learned "nbytes" for an inode is the total sum of
extents this inode has (assuming this is a re
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:57:12 -0600, cwillu wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
>>> Step to reproduce:
>>> # mkfs.btrfs
>>> # mount
>>> # btrfs sub create /subv0
>>> # btrfs sub snap /subv0/snap0
>>> # change /subv0
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:57:12 -0600, cwillu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
>> Step to reproduce:
>> # mkfs.btrfs
>> # mount
>> # btrfs sub create /subv0
>> # btrfs sub snap /subv0/snap0
>> # change /subv0 from R/W to R/O
>> # btrfs sub del /subv0/snap0
>>
>> We
Swami,
I believe the only thing that "inode_cache" mount option does is
allowing to reuse inode numbers. Like if you had a file with inode
number=X and you delete this file, then you will never have inode=X in
the same file tree (subvolume) again. You can look at
btrfs_find_free_ino() that allocate
On 10/23/2012 09:55 PM, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> Tree mod log treated old root buffers as always empty buffers when starting
> the rewind operations. However, the old root may still be part of the
> current tree at a lower level, with still some valid entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Schmidt
> ---
>
Hi Wang,
if you just look at the code in find_free_dev_extent():
u64 search_start = 0;
...
search_start = max((u64)1024 * 1024, search_start);
if (root->fs_info->alloc_start + num_bytes <= device->total_bytes)
search_start = max(root->fs_info->alloc_start, search_start);
...
key.objectid =
If there's is a long name directory exists in the /dev, then an
overflow will hit in function utils.c btrfs_scan_one_dir:1013!
The minimal fix is to use snprintf instead of strcpy.
The reason why not using strncpy is that, if there is no null byte
among the first n bytes of src, the string place
On 2012/10/24 16:15, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:34:36 +0200
>> From: Lukas Czerner
>> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: jba...@fusionio.com, Lukas Czerner
>> Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: Return EINVAL when length to trim is les
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:34:36 +0200
> From: Lukas Czerner
> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: jba...@fusionio.com, Lukas Czerner
> Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: Return EINVAL when length to trim is less than FSB
>
> Currently if len argument in btrfs_
24 matches
Mail list logo
