On 09/02/2013 10:58 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
Wang, kindly note that this was fixed in v4.
Yeah...This is sent by my shell script by accident, I have fixed it and
it won't send the repeated message again.
Thanks for reminding .. ^_^
Anand
On 09/01/2013 02:15 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello,
Wang, kindly note that this was fixed in v4.
Anand
On 09/01/2013 02:15 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello, Using checkpatch.pl, i get the following warnings(errors):
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#37: FILE: cmds-filesystem.c:47:
+static char * group_type_str(u64 flag)
ERROR: "foo * bar
when the balance is running, the replace start ioctl
fails (for the right reasons). but since the cli has
put ioctl thread to background (for right reasons)
the user won't know that cli failed to start.
so before cli goes to the background, it should check
if mutually_exclusive_operation_running i
Sorry, please ignore this thread...
Thanks,
wang
On 09/01/2013 02:15 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello, Using checkpatch.pl, i get the following warnings(errors):
WARNING: kfree(NULL) is safe this check is probably not required
#132: FILE: fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:3035:
+ if (map)
+
Sorry for the late reply.
I checked the new man page, which seems OK for me.
Thank you.
Qu Wenruo
于 2013年08月06日 07:28, David Sterba 写道:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43:22AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Update the man page of "btrfs" command to keep up with new commands.
Thanks. Please check if I h
On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 14:08 +0200, Steven Post wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 18:03 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Steven Post
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 11:42 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes. It might take a few minutes after the chunks
If replace was suspended by the umount, replace target device is added
to the fs_devices->alloc_list during a later mount. This is obviously
wrong. ->is_tgtdev_for_dev_replace is supposed to guard against that,
but ->is_tgtdev_for_dev_replace is (and can only ever be) initialized
*after* everythi
Hello list, sorry for my bad english anyway.
if my message is delirium, just ignore this message.
My question:
When using mixed blocks, metadata and data chunks has be merge, but we
have (when using mixed) speed penalty.
how many penalty will be have if we using mixed?
Kernel 3.11-rc7, Ubuntu 13.
Hi again.
Sorry for top posting.
I have a 9 disk filesystem that does not mount anymore and need some
help/advice so I can recover the data.
What happened was that I was running a btrfs delete device
under Ubuntu 13.04 Kernel 3.8
and after a long time of moving data around it crashed with a SE
On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 18:03 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Steven Post wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 11:42 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. It might take a few minutes after the chunks are reallocated for the
> >> device to be removed from the volume. I'
When the binary search returns 0 (exact match), the target key
will necessarily be at slot 0 of all nodes below the current one,
so in this case the binary search is not needed because it will
always return 0, and we waste time doing it, holding node locks
for longer than necessary, etc.
Below fol
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
> On sat, 31 Aug 2013 13:54:56 +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
>> When the binary search returns 0 (exact match), the target key
>> will necessarily be at slot 0 of all nodes below the current one,
>> so in this case the binary search is
Replace list_for_each_entry() by list_for_each_entry_safe() in
__btrfs_close_devices()
list_for_each_entry() {
list_replace_rcu();
call_rcu(); <--We may free the device, if we get next
device by the current one, the page fault
Hi Josef,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Btrfs uses an rwsem to control access to its extent tree. Threads will hold a
> read lock on this rwsem while they scan the extent tree, and if need_resched()
> they will drop the lock and schedule. The transaction commit needs to
On sat, 31 Aug 2013 13:54:56 +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
> When the binary search returns 0 (exact match), the target key
> will necessarily be at slot 0 of all nodes below the current one,
> so in this case the binary search is not needed because it will
> always return 0, and we
15 matches
Mail list logo
