On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Kyle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the linux-btrfs list interested in receiving bug reports relating to btrfs?
>
> If so, the following error occurred on a server of mine when copying a large
> amount of data to a linear md-RAID formatted as btrfs. The data transfer
> hung
Hi,
Is the linux-btrfs list interested in receiving bug reports relating to
btrfs?
If so, the following error occurred on a server of mine when copying a
large amount of data to a linear md-RAID formatted as btrfs. The data
transfer hung, and any attempt to kill or strace the copy process hu
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:38:29PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:44:04PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:20:58PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > > Using spinning case instead of blocking will
I think the common pattern here is that error details follow the
message, like
+ "skipping device registration: %s\n",
I'll fix it here, if you don't mind.
Pls do. Thanks David.
-Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the bo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Sterba wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > From: David Marcin
>
> Missing signed-off from David, please let us know if it's ok to add it.
>
> thanks,
> david
>
Yes, OK to add. Sorry for missing that the first time ar
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:17PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> --- a/cmds-restore.c
> +++ b/cmds-restore.c
> @@ -839,27 +839,67 @@ static int do_list_roots(struct btrfs_root *root)
> static struct btrfs_root *open_fs(const char *dev, u64 root_location,
> int super_m
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:12PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> --- a/cmds-restore.c
> +++ b/cmds-restore.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> #include "utils.h"
> #include "commands.h"
>
> +static char fs_name[4096];
Path handling should use PATH_MAX, but I'm ok with a separate patch to
fix all of them in
Am Donnerstag, 14. März 2013 schrieb Norbert Scheibner:
> Am 13.03.2013, 12:31 Uhr, schrieb Swâmi Petaramesh :
> > Le 13/03/2013 11:56, Bart Noordervliet a écrit :
> >> USB flash drives are rubbish for any filesystem except FAT32 and then
> >> still only gracefully accept large sequential writes. A
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> From: David Marcin
Missing signed-off from David, please let us know if it's ok to add it.
thanks,
david
---
> cmds-restore.c | 11 +++
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cmds-restore.c b
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:17:19AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> fprintf(stderr, "failed to open /dev/btrfs-control "
> - "skipping device registration\n");
> + "%s, skipping device registration\n",
> + strerror(errno));
I thin
I've added the rest of the missing make targets into that commit
@@ -12,15 +12,24 @@ btrfs-show
btrfs-vol
btrfsck
btrfsctl
+calc-size
+ioctl-test
+dir-test
+send-test
+quick-test
find-root
mkfs.btrfs
+mkfs.btrfs.static
repair
restore
btrfs-convert
btrfs-find-root
+btrfs-find-root.static
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:41:13PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Johannes Hirte wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:39:35 +0800
> > Liu Bo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Johannes,
> > >
> > > Could you please tell us what mount options you're with?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> >
Am 13.03.2013, 12:31 Uhr, schrieb Swâmi Petaramesh :
Le 13/03/2013 11:56, Bart Noordervliet a écrit :
USB flash drives are rubbish for any filesystem except FAT32 and then
still only gracefully accept large sequential writes. A few years ago
I thought it would be a good idea to put the root par
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:44:04PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:20:58PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > Using spinning case instead of blocking will result in better concurrency
> > > overall.
> >
> > Do you have num
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:58:05PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> free_root_pointers() has been introduced to cleanup all of tree roots,
> so just use it instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of
free_root_pointers() has been introduced to cleanup all of tree roots,
so just use it instead.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 15 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 7d84651..7136643 10064
Argument 'root' is no more used in btrfs_csum_data().
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
---
fs/btrfs/compression.c |3 +--
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |6 +++---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.h |2 +-
fs/btrfs/file-item.c|3 +--
fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c |4 ++--
fs/btrfs/inod
On 3/14/13 9:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/14/13 3:56 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/14/2013 12:36 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 3/13/13 10:05 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So here is what confuses me now. :)
>>>
>>> *every* caller of btrfs_read_dev_super() is now called with
>>
On 3/14/13 3:56 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 03/14/2013 12:36 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 3/13/13 10:05 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So here is what confuses me now. :)
>>
>> *every* caller of btrfs_read_dev_super() is now called with
>> 0 for the flags variable, so it never reads the b
On 3/14/13 3:31 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> /dev/sdc does not contain btrfs SB at all..
>
> ---
> # btrfs dev scan /dev/sdc
> Scanning for Btrfs filesystems in '/dev/sdc'
> ERROR: unable to scan the device '/dev/sdc' - Invalid argument
> ---
>
> here appropriate error is something li
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:01:54 -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing this patch, may I put your Reviewed-by: on this
> version?
Yes. Thanks.
Reviewed-by: Stefan Behrens
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vge
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:36:09AM -0600, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Bad key ordering is pretty rare, and it usually means memory
> > corruptions. Are you reproducing this on the same machine or a
> > different one?
>
> I've attached a kernel message log o
Stefan,
Thanks for reviewing this patch, may I put your Reviewed-by: on this
version?
Thanks
--Rich
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htm
Am Donnerstag, 14. März 2013 schrieb Harald Glatt:
> That's because the test shouldn't be in your root in the first place.
> The common way of thinking now is to create a btrfs volume with a
> structure for holding subvolumes inside of which your system root is a
> member. You then mount the system
Hi Jérôme,
Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 schrieb Jérôme Poulin:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > [ 37.176790] BTRFS error (device dm-0) in __btrfs_free_extent:5143:
> > IO failure [ 37.176791] btrfs is forced readonly
> > [ 37.176793] btrfs: run_one_delayed_ref retur
On 03/14/2013 12:36 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 3/13/13 10:05 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
So here is what confuses me now. :)
*every* caller of btrfs_read_dev_super() is now called with
0 for the flags variable, so it never reads the backup
under any circumstance.
If it's always called w/ 0, what
just for the record, this patch also fixes the following 2 issues..
sdc contains primary-SB of ext4 and backup SB of btrfs
# blkid /dev/sdc
/dev/sdc: UUID="4450e281-db04-4736-a03e-1ce6deda74f3" TYPE="ext4"
#
# btrfs-show-super -i 1 /dev/sdc
superblock: bytenr=67108864, device=/dev/sdc
::
-
Hi,
/dev/sdc does not contain btrfs SB at all..
---
# btrfs dev scan /dev/sdc
Scanning for Btrfs filesystems in '/dev/sdc'
ERROR: unable to scan the device '/dev/sdc' - Invalid argument
---
here appropriate error is something like
no btrfs found on dev
However btrfs_scan_one_device (ke
28 matches
Mail list logo
