On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 13:56:19 +0800
Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
It seems that btrfs automatically assigns a qgroup to newly created
snapshot/subvolume, but does not destroy the qgroup when the
subvolume is deleted.
This should be implemented. And will soon.
Great to
On 08/09/2013 02:42 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:08:48 +0800
Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
0/4494 839516160 18446744073709481984 --- -- want to remove
only this one
13/1 2142674944 2142674944
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:56:15 +0800
Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
So how exactly should I do it? A bit confused on how to proceed.
btrfs qgroup remove 4494 13/1 mnt
will destroy relation between 4494 and 13/1
Then you can try:
btrfs qgroup destroy 4494 mnt
Excellent,
On Fri, August 09, 2013 at 07:25 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote:
The origin code dealt with 'ref' as following steps:
|-list_del(ref-list)
|-some operations
|-kfree(ref)
If operations failed, it would goto label 'out' without freeing this 'ref'.
and then memory
The origin code dealt with 'ref' as following steps:
|-list_del(ref-list)
|-some operations
|--goto cleanup if failed
|-kfree(ref)
cleanup:
|-cleanup all 'ref's in the list
If operations failed, it would goto label 'cleanup' without
freeing this 'ref'.The
On 08/08/2013 09:20 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:12:29PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
When disabling quota, we should clear out list 'dirty_qgroups',otherwise,
we will get oops if enabling quota again. Fix this by abstracting similar
code from del_qgroup_rb().
On 07.08.2013 07:12, Wang Shilong wrote:
When disabling quota, we should clear out list 'dirty_qgroups',otherwise,
we will get oops if enabling quota again. Fix this by abstracting similar
code from del_qgroup_rb().
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Reviewed-by: Miao
On 07.08.2013 07:12, Wang Shilong wrote:
We have checked 'quota_root' with qgroup_ioctl_lock held before,So
here the check is reduplicate, remove it.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Reviewed-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 5 -
1 file
On 09/08/2013 02:08, Zach Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:07:07PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
As of now btrfs filesystem show reads directly from
disks. So sometimes output can be stale, mainly when
user want to verify their last operation like,
labeling or device delete or add... etc.
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com writes:
So stripe_len shouldn't be 0, if it is you have bigger problems :).
The bigger problem is that stripe_nr is u64, this is completely bogus.
The first operand of do_div must be u32. This goes through the
Hello, just add my answer for a missing question.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 13:56:19 +0800
Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
It seems that btrfs automatically assigns a qgroup to newly created
snapshot/subvolume, but does not destroy the qgroup when the
subvolume is deleted.
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:35:46PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
This aims to add deduplication subcommand, 'btrfs dedup command path',
ie. register/unregister'.
I'm not sure that calling it register/unregister is the right thing, IMO
it's more enable/disable as you write in the documentation under each
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:01 AM, David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
Thanks, I missed to find that before.
The implementation is very different from the one I proposed.
That's one of the fundaental questions how to store the
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Stefan Behrens
sbehr...@giantdisaster.de wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:00:52 +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
Since all code paths that update the number of devices in the
super copy (fs_info-super_copy) first lock the device list
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:17:57AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
And isn't it still a mistake? I think it used to be that
subvol_uuid_search_init()
would allocate the memory which must be freed, but that's no longer the case,
right? So under what circumstances is it correct to call
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 02:30:38PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com writes:
So stripe_len shouldn't be 0, if it is you have bigger problems :).
The bigger problem is that stripe_nr is u64, this is completely
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:10:39 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:17:57AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
And isn't it still a mistake? I think it used to be that
subvol_uuid_search_init()
would allocate the memory which must be freed, but that's no longer the case,
right? So
This change fixes an issue when removing a device and writing
all super blocks run simultaneously. Here's the steps necessary
for the issue to happen:
1) disk-io.c:write_all_supers() gets a number of N devices from the
super_copy, so it will not panic if it fails to write super blocks
for N
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:47:24PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:45:48 +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
8MiB is way too large and likely set by mistake. This is not
a significant issue as in practice the max amount of data
added to an inline extent is also limited by
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:50:35 +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Stefan Behrens
sbehr...@giantdisaster.de wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:00:52 +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
Since all code paths that update the number of devices in the
super copy
Hi Chris,
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Sage Weil (2013-06-20 17:56:19)
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
Very long way of saying I think we're one release_path short. Sage, I
haven't tested
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 02:26:36PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com writes:
So stripe_len shouldn't be 0, if it is you have bigger problems :).
The bigger problem is that stripe_nr is u64, this is completely bogus.
The first operand of do_div must be u32. This
Mark many functions as static, and remove any resulting dead code.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com
---
V2: Keep the special subvol_uuid_search_add()-which-only-frees-pointers
because I'm picking my battles :)
btrfs-convert.c |8
btrfs-find-root.c |2 +-
Device removal currently causes bdev removal to try to double free a bh
in the bdev:
[ 55.714833] WARNING: at fs/buffer.c:1160 __brelse+0x36/0x40()
[ 55.714833] VFS: brelse: Trying to free free buffer
Commit 7e3d9ebb1 added a double release of the bh for a device being
removed when all the
Commit 1104a8855 added an error branch that forgot to release the super
bh. I found this while looking for an unrelated double brelse.
Signed-off-by: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:20:47PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Mark many functions as static, and remove any resulting dead code.
Thanks.
-struct btrfs_root *link_subvol(struct btrfs_root *root, const char *base,
-u64 root_objectid)
+static struct btrfs_root *
On 8/9/13 5:48 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:20:47PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Mark many functions as static, and remove any resulting dead code.
Thanks.
-struct btrfs_root *link_subvol(struct btrfs_root *root, const char *base,
- u64
27 matches
Mail list logo
