the alloc list of the filesystem is protected by -chunk_mutex, we need
get that mutex when we insert the new device into the list.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
Hi Josef,
On 01/29/2014 10:32 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
I sent a patch to kick off transaction from btrfs send, however it gets
a regression that btrfs send try to search extent commit root without
transaction protection.
To fix this
[Answer from Duncan, 1i5t5.duncan@DOMAIN.HIDDEN (Thanks for the try)]
[AFAIK that shouldn't be the case. Degraded should allow the RW mount --
I know it did some kernels ago when I tried it then, and if it changed,
it's news to me too, in which case I need to do some reevaluation here.]
What I
2014-01-30 Gerhard Heift gerh...@heift.name:
By copying each found item seperatly to userspace, we do not need extra
memory in the kernel. This allows to run a large search inside of a single
call.
Signed-off-by: Gerhard Heift gerh...@heift.name
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 52
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Darrick J. Wong
darrick.w...@oracle.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:22:46AM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
After the change titled Btrfs: add support for inode properties, if
btrfs was built-in the kernel (i.e. not as a module), it would cause a
Function wait_for_parent_move() returns negative value if an error
happened, 0 if we don't need to wait for the parent's move, and
1 if the wait is needed.
Before this change an error return value was being treated like the
return value 1, which was not correct.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Filipe David Manana fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Darrick J. Wong
darrick.w...@oracle.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:22:46AM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
After the change titled Btrfs: add support for inode
This patch series first rewrites tree_search to copy found items directly to
userspace and then adds a new ioctl TREE_SEARCH_V2 with which we could store
them in a varying buffer. Now even items larger than 3992 bytes or a large
amount of items can be returned. This is the case for some
rewrite search_ioctl to accept a buffer with varying size
Signed-off-by: Gerhard Heift gerh...@heift.name
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 18 +++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index b1c5b4f..9b66eac 100644
---
This new ioctl call allows the user to supply a buffer of varying size in which
a tree search can store its results. This is much more flexible if you want to
receive items which are larger than the current fixed buffer of 3992 bytes or
if you want to fetch more items at once. Items larger than
By copying each found item seperatly to userspace, we do not need extra
buffer in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Gerhard Heift gerh...@heift.name
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 48 +---
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git
If the amount of items reached the given limit of nr_items, we can leave
copy_to_sk without updating the key. Also by returning 1 we leave the loop in
search_ioctl without rechecking if we reached the given limit.
Signed-off-by: Gerhard Heift gerh...@heift.name
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 12
If an item in tree_search is too large to be stored in the given buffer, return
the needed size (including the header).
Signed-off-by: Gerhard Heift gerh...@heift.name
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 24 +++-
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git
In copy_to_sk, if an item is too large for the given buffer, it now returns
-EOVERFLOW instead of copying a search_header with len = 0. For backward
compatibility for the first item it still copies such a header to the buffer,
but not any other following items, which could have fitted.
On 01/30/2014 04:42 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hi Josef,
On 01/29/2014 10:32 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
I sent a patch to kick off transaction from btrfs send, however it gets
a regression that btrfs send try to search extent commit root without
Hello Josef,
On 01/30/2014 04:42 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hi Josef,
On 01/29/2014 10:32 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
I sent a patch to kick off transaction from btrfs send, however it gets
a regression that btrfs send try to search extent commit
On 01/30/2014 11:20 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Josef,
On 01/30/2014 04:42 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hi Josef,
On 01/29/2014 10:32 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
I sent a patch to kick off transaction from btrfs send, however it gets
a regression
在 2014-1-31，上午12:23，Josef Bacik jba...@fb.com 写道：
On 01/30/2014 11:20 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Josef,
On 01/30/2014 04:42 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hi Josef,
On 01/29/2014 10:32 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
I sent a patch to kick off
Help during debugging to export various interesting infromation and
tunables without the need of extra mount options or ioctls.
Usage:
* declare your variable in sysfs.h, and include where you need it
* define the variable in sysfs.c and make it visible via
debugfs_create_TYPE
Depends on
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Johan Kröckel johan.kroec...@gmail.com wrote:
My situation:
Former btrfs-RAID1 on two luks encrypted partitions (bunkerA and bunkerB).
Disk holding bunkerB died online.
Now I started rebalancing bunkerA to single,
You're doing an online conversion of a
On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:53 AM, Johan Kröckel johan.kroec...@gmail.com wrote:
[As I said, to the best of my (non-dev btrfs user and list regular)
knowledge, mount -o degraded,rw should work.]
No, it doesnt.
Syslog says: Jan 30 12:44:02 fortknox kernel: [756677.795661] Btrfs:
too many
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:33:21AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Johan Kröckel johan.kroec...@gmail.com wrote:
My situation:
Former btrfs-RAID1 on two luks encrypted partitions (bunkerA and bunkerB).
Disk holding bunkerB died online.
Now I started
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:33:21AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Johan Kröckel johan.kroec...@gmail.com wrote:
My situation:
Former btrfs-RAID1 on two luks encrypted partitions (bunkerA and
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:26:42AM -0800, Matthew Lai wrote:
I have just started playing with btrfs, and noticed that btrfs send only
works for root (ERROR: failed to initialize subvol search. Operation not
permitted), even on subvolumes created by the user.
Am I doing something wrong? Or is
On Jan 30, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Johan Kröckel johan.kroec...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-30 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
Is this encrypted Btrfs volume used for rootfs? Or is it only for data? If
it's only for data, then make sure the volume (all subvolumes) are umounted,
then mount
The structure for BTRFS_SET_RECEIVED_IOCTL packs differently on 32-bit
and 64-bit systems. This means that it is impossible to use btrfs
receive on a system with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, because
the structure size (and hence the ioctl number) is different.
This patch adds a
Everyone, here is a noob question: how do completely delete a btrfs filesystem
(RAID10)?
$ sudo btrfs filesystem show
Label: none uuid: 0ee72c25-9169-4836-873d-468ebdea8c1a
Total devices 4 FS bytes used 92.00KB
devid1 size 1.82TB used 76.02GB path /dev/sda
devid2
Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying!
Matthew
On 30/01/2014 10:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:26:42AM -0800, Matthew Lai wrote:
I have just started playing with btrfs, and noticed that btrfs send only
works for root (ERROR: failed to initialize subvol search. Operation not
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:27:55PM +, Maziarz, Jeremy M. wrote:
Everyone, here is a noob question: how do completely delete a btrfs
filesystem (RAID10)?
wipefs, on each device, is the precision approach -- it will very
carefully damage the magic number in the first superblock on each
On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:27:55PM +, Maziarz, Jeremy M. wrote:
Everyone, here is a noob question: how do completely delete a btrfs
filesystem (RAID10)?
wipefs, on each device, is the precision approach -- it will
On 01/29/2014 10:54 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Steven,
We noticed xfstests generic/299 TFAIL on btrfs since
commit 9fe55eea7e4b444bafc42facc2d1d2847275
Author: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com
AuthorDate: Fri Jan 24 14:42:22 2014 +
Commit: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
So this test does lots of fallocate/truncate noise while doing aio overwrites to
try and exercise a deadlock found in ext4. Because it runs so hard with ENOSPC
it can sometimes cause truncate to fail on btrfs. This is ok and doesn't affect
the validity of the test, we just need to catch the
Thanks guys, your suggestions were exactly what I needed.
Jeremy
On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:27:55PM +, Maziarz, Jeremy M. wrote:
Everyone, here
On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:53 AM, Johan Kröckel johan.kroec...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg20164.html
and
Syslog says: Jan 30 12:44:02 fortknox kernel: [756677.795661] Btrfs:
too many missing devices, writeable mount is not allowed
By the way, the cited patch
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
IOW, I guess I don't agree with that patch as it was apparently
committed. There needs to be a force option as well.
-o degraded is the force option. I think the problem here is that there's
sufficient damage to the one
readded list
On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:03 PM, KC impacto...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/01/14 21:16, Chris Murphy wrote:
You could also rename /home, create a subvolume home within current
subvolume root, then move the files from directory /home_old to the
subvolume /home. Now when you
I wrote:
They could just as well go in a directory called .snapshots, off hand I'm not
thinking of an advantage of putting snapshots into a subvolume.
There isn't an advantage with a top level 5 subvolume being used for rootfs.
But if it's not being mounted, rather other named subvolumes
Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:00:39 -0700 as excerpted:
Another question for Johann is what exact balance command was to go back
to single? Was there -dconvert and -mconvert? Both are required to go
from raid1/raid to single/DUP or single/single, and actually get rid of
the 2nd
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:58 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
IOW, just because it's a conversion to single mode doesn't mean we're
dropping a device, and a rebalance to single mode wasn't in fact designed
to drop a device (that's what device delete is for)
Ahh yes, of course. So for
On Jan 30, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'm also seeing many Error reading 1647012864000, -1 with different block
addresses (same -1 though), and also 165992304failed to load free space
cache for block group also with different numbers. Maybe hundreds
2014-01-30 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
Now the damaged disk disappeared completely. No sign of it in
/proc/diskstats.
I don't know what you mean by it's disappeared complete. Are you talking
about the physical block device? Or the dm logical block device?
It failed and doesn't
Sorry, I failed using this list in conjunction with gmail and send
most answers to respectively duncan and chris directly.
So I sum it up here again:
What do you get for:
lsblk
blkid
btrfs device scan --all-devices
btrfs fi show
root@fortknox:/# lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO
The attached dmesg log shows the results of trying to cat a file on a BTRFS
filesystem when running the latest Debian/Unstable kernel (upstream 3.12.8
with some Debian patches that probably aren't relevant to BTRFS).
I've rebooted the Thinkpad in question and repeated the problem after a
Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:13:36 -0700 as excerpted:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com
wrote:
I'm also seeing many Error reading 1647012864000, -1 with different
block addresses (same -1 though), and also 165992304failed to load
free
44 matches
Mail list logo
