On Sun, 11 May 2014 16:11:56 Brendan Hide wrote:
> On 2014/05/11 11:52 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 May 2014, Russell Coker wrote:
> >> Below is the output of running a balance a few times on a 120G SSD.
> >
> > Sorry forgot to mention that's kernel 3.14.1 Debian package.
>
> Please s
use the newer and more pleasant kstrtoull() to replace simple_strtoull(),
because simple_strtoull() is marked for obsoletion.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index 2ad7de9.
Btrfs device id start from 1, not 0.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
utils.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
index 560c557..d480353 100644
--- a/utils.c
+++ b/utils.c
@@ -1765,7 +1765,7 @@ int get_fs_info(char *path, struct
btrfs_ioctl_fs_in
Seeding device support allows us to create a new filesystem
based on existed filesystem.
However newly created filesystem's @total_devices should include seed
devices. This patch fix the following problem:
# mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb
# btrfstune -S 1 /dev/sdb
# mount /dev/sdb /mnt
# btrfs device
Hi Anand,
On 05/12/2014 10:00 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
This patch posted a long time back should fix it.
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/33276
I sent a patch to address another problem, plus your patch should can
fix the problem.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4163
Hello Anand,
I agree we can export @total_devices to fix 'btrfs file show' problem.
This patch addressed two problem, it is better to split it into two patches.
Could you please resend the patch, at least we should fix 'btrfs file show'
problem firstly.
Thanks,
Wang
On 03/07/2014 11:48 PM, Ana
On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:05:05 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Btrfs device id start from 1, not 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
> ---
> utils.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
> index 560c557..d480353 100644
> --- a/utils.c
> +++ b/utils
On 05/13/2014 06:48 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:05:05 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
Btrfs device id start from 1, not 0.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
utils.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
index 560c557..d480353 100
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:18:04PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> To be clear, I would like to avoid inode_cache on 64bit machine.
>
> In order to avoid the risk to exhaust the inode on 32bit and to be
> backward compatible with what already exists, we could add a flag to
> mkfs.btrfs to be on
Russell Coker posted on Tue, 13 May 2014 17:57:00 +1000 as excerpted:
>> The pathological case is where you have a chunk that is 1% full and
>> *every* other in-use chunk on the device is 100% full. In that
>> situation, a balance will simply move that data into a new chunk (which
>> will only eve
When running send, if an inode only has extended reference items
associated to it and no regular references, send.c:get_first_ref()
was incorrectly assuming the reference it found was of type
BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY due to use of the wrong key variable.
This caused weird behaviour when using the found
Regression for btrfs send when an inode only has extended references
associated to it (no regular references present). This used to cause
incorrect access to a b+tree leaf, where an extended reference item
was accessed as if it were a regular reference item, causing unexpected
and unpredictable beh
Fedora had a bug where a poor user thought that --alloc-start
meant that the filesystem would be created at that offset into
the device, rather than just starting allocations at that offset.
A subtle difference, but worth clarifying, because the manpage
is misleading on this point.
The original co
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 04:57:18PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 03:42:49PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>> > I tried with 3.14.3 and it went further, however it died with
>> > legolas:/mnt/btrfs_pool2# btrfs send home_ro.
Allow the specification of the filesystem UUID at mkfs time.
(Implemented only for mkfs.btrfs, not btrfs-convert).
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
diff --git a/btrfs-convert.c b/btrfs-convert.c
index a8b2c51..d62d4f8 100644
--- a/btrfs-convert.c
+++ b/btrfs-convert.c
@@ -2240,7 +2240,7 @@ stati
Hi!
I'm trying to do a send/receive of a snapshot between two disks on
Fedora 20 with Linux 3.15-rc5 (and also tried with 3.14 and 3.11) and
SELinux disabled, and then I'm receiving the following error:
[root@darwin /]# btrfs subvolume snapshot -r / @.$(date
+%Y-%m-%d-%H%M%S)Create a readonl
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:44:44PM -0300, Bernardo Donadio wrote:
Hi!
I'm trying to do a send/receive of a snapshot between two disks on
Fedora 20 with Linux 3.15-rc5 (and also tried with 3.14 and 3.11) and
SELinux disabled, and then I'm receiving the following error:
[root@darwin /]# btrfs
If we point btrfs-show-super at a not-btrfs-device and
try to print all superblocks, bad things are apt to happen:
superblock: bytenr=274877906944, device=/dev/sdc2
-
btrfs-show-super: ctree.h:1984: btrfs_super_csum_size: Assertion `!(t >=
(
On 05/13/2014 10:57 PM, David Brown wrote:
$ selinuxenabled; echo $?
It does return '1'. I know SELinux is disabled because I can't boot with
it on (and I have no fucking clue why).
What exactly is the error complaining about, BTW? A guy at
#selinux@freenode said something about btrfs not s
> Btrfs device id start from 1, not 0.
That was an intentional change.
50275ba btrfs-progs: there is devid 0 when replace is running
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
utils.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
index 560c557..d480353
On May 13, 2014, at 7:57 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:44:44PM -0300, Bernardo Donadio wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm trying to do a send/receive of a snapshot between two disks on Fedora 20
>> with Linux 3.15-rc5 (and also tried with 3.14 and 3.11) and SELinux
>> disabled, and
On May 13, 2014, at 9:16 PM, Bernardo Donadio wrote:
> On 05/13/2014 10:57 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> $ selinuxenabled; echo $?
>
> It does return '1'. I know SELinux is disabled because I can't boot with it
> on (and I have no fucking clue why).
>
> What exactly is the error complaining about
22 matches
Mail list logo