On 29/07/2014 20:57, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:28:24PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
xfstest btrfs/023 which does the following tests
create_group_profile raid0
check_group_profile RAID0
create_group_profile raid1
check_group_profile RAID1
create_group_profile raid10
On 30/07/2014 15:42, Miao Xie wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:33:34 +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
After the seed device has been replaced the new target device
is no more a seed device. So we need to bring that state in
the fs_devices.
reproducer:
mount /dev/sdb /btrfs
btrfs dev add /dev/sdc /btrfs
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:05:16PM -0400, Nick Krause wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch removes the lines for releasing the page cache in certain
files as this may aid in perfomance with writes in the compression
rountines of btrfs.
Hi,
I'm sorry cause I suppose it's a recurrent question. However I've been looking
into the linux kernel code and didn't see anything concerning an experimental
status for Btrfs. However, when I format a device with mkfs.btrfs I get a
message saying it's experimental that comes from
Calling unlock_up() to release our new path doesn't release the
read lock on the node at level 1, because our return path has
path-slots[0] == 0, which makes unlock_up() skip unlocking that
node. Since we don't need to return that node locked, call
btrfs_unlock_up_safe() instead of unlock_up(),
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:07:39PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
and the fsync just made the race window smaller. If you still think
the fsync is useful, please update the changelog.
You mean I should put fsync at more correct places ?
The fsync should not be necessary, but I haven't looked
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:36:57AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
Where is that git tree? I've been planning to set up a unit test and
regression suite for tty/serial, and wouldn't mind cribbing the
infrastructure from someone's existing work.
Make it consistent with kernel status and documentation.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
mkfs.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c
index 16e92221a547..538b6e6837b2 100644
--- a/mkfs.c
+++ b/mkfs.c
@@ -1439,8 +1439,8 @@ int
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:25:07AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 10:26 +, Duncan wrote:
Gui Hecheng posted on Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:32:05 +0800 as excerpted:
Also, add description of the potential failure as follows
If a scrub is already running running, it
This is a better solution for the problem addressed in the following
commit:
Btrfs: update commit root on snapshot creation after orphan cleanup
(3821f348889e506efbd268cc8149e0ebfa47c4e5)
The previous solution wasn't the best because of 2 reasons:
1) It added another full
I've now reproduced this on 3.15.7-031507-generic and
3.16.0-031600rc7-generic, and have a test case where I can reliably
cause the crash after about 30 seconds of disk activity.
The test case just involves taking a directory tree of ~400GB of files
and copying every file to a new one with .new
I should add that I have reproduced this even after doing `mount -o
clear_cache /dev/... /mnt/...`, unmount, remount with `-o
space_cache`. After the machine lockup and rebooting there are the
warnings of the form:
[ 117.288248] BTRFS warning (device dm-0): block group 694165700608 has wrong
Concerning http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31018, does
this bug still exists?
Kernel 3.14
B: 2x HDD 1 TB
C: 1x SSD 256 GB
# make-bcache -B /dev/sda /dev/sdb -C /dev/sdc --cache_replacement_policy=lru
# mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1 -L BTRFS_RAID /dev/bcache0 /dev/bcache1
I
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:05:16PM -0400, Nick Krause wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch removes the lines for releasing the page cache in certain
files as this may aid
This adds checks for the stated modes as if they are crap we will return error
not supported.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause xerofo...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/file.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index 1f2b99c..599495a
I am doing this project from the btrfs wiki, since I am new after
reading the code using lxr I am wondering if
we can base the code off that already in ext4 for these modes as they
seem to work rather well. I am wondering
through as a newbie some of the data structures are ext4 based and the
same
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:53:33PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
This adds checks for the stated modes as if they are crap we will return error
not supported.
You've just enabled two options, but you haven't actually
implemented the code behind it. I would tell you *NOT* to do anything
else
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:08:15PM -0400, Nick Krause wrote:
I am doing this project from the btrfs wiki, since I am new after
reading the code using lxr I am wondering if
we can base the code off that already in ext4 for these modes as they
seem to work rather well. I am wondering
through as
If we open a file with O_TMPFILE, don't do any further operation on
it (so that the inode item isn't updated) and then force a transaction
commit, we get a persisted inode item with a link count of 1, and not 0
as it should be.
Steps to reproduce it (requires a modern xfs_io with -T support):
Regression test for a btrfs issue where we create a RO snapshot
to use for a send operation, which fails with a -ESTALE error,
due to the presence of orphan inodes accessible through the
snapshot's commit root but no longer present through the main
root.
This issue is fixed by the following linux
Good time of day.
I have several questions about data deduplication on btrfs.
Sorry if i ask stupid questions or waste you time %)
What about implementation of offline data deduplication? I don't see
any activity on this place, may be i need to ask a particular person?
Where the problem? May be a
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:53:33PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
This adds checks for the stated modes as if they are crap we will return
error
not supported.
You've just enabled two options, but you haven't actually
dptrash posted on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:35:44 +0200 as excerpted:
Concerning http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31018,
does this bug still exists?
Kernel 3.14 B: 2x HDD 1 TB C: 1x SSD 256 GB
# make-bcache -B /dev/sda /dev/sdb -C /dev/sdc
--cache_replacement_policy=lru
#
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:08:15PM -0400, Nick Krause wrote:
I am doing this project from the btrfs wiki, since I am new after
reading the code using lxr I am wondering if
we can base the code off that already in ext4 for
From: Satoru Takeuchi takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com
There are many duplicated codes to check if the given string is
correct subvolume name. Introduce test_issubvolname() for this
purpose for simplicity.
Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com
Cc: David Sterba
From: Satoru Takeuchi takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com
Since test_isdir() is a utility function, it's better to
move it to utils.c. In addition, const char * is
more appropriate type as its path argument because
this argument is not changed in this function.
Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi
(2014/07/31 21:21), David Sterba wrote:
Make it consistent with kernel status and documentation.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
Reviewed-by: Satoru Takeuchi takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com
I'm glad to see this patch :-)
Thanks,
Satoru
---
mkfs.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed,
Hey Guys,
I need to ask a question again, I am writing the above function and
basing it off the one of punch hole.
I have only started writing the function and have a few questions
about how to write this. Below this message
are my questions so fair and I also posting my written code in case
you
According to Documentations/filesystem/btrfs.txt, ssd/ssd_spread/nossd
has their own dependency(See below), but only ssd_spread implying ssd is
implemented.
ssd_spread implies ssd, conflicts nossd.
ssd conflicts nossd.
nossd conflicts ssd and ssd_spread.
This patch adds ssd{,_spread} confliction
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:21:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:52:37PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
When testing with lvm, a previous btrfsck run could change df output
from something like
/dev/mapper/rhel_hp--dl388eg8--01-testlv1 btrfs 15728640 900 13602172 1%
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:02:41PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:21:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:52:37PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
When testing with lvm, a previous btrfsck run could change df output
from something like
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 02:49:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:02:41PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:21:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:52:37PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
When testing with lvm, a previous btrfsck run
32 matches
Mail list logo
