Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

Thanks for the comments. Sorry for the delay. Trying to find out if there is any pending concerns... Hopefully, per-filesystem hot-spares will be a high priority too, as that type of usage is pretty much required for many enterprise type uses, although that doesn't need to be the same code

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

Thanks for commenting. I'm sorry but I didn't quite see the benefit of a spare device. Aside from what Duncan said (and I happen to agree with him), there is also the fact that hot-spares are (at least traditionally in most RAID systems) usually used with RAID5 or RAID6 (or some other parity

Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk

I just got the backup disk back, also btrfs, which was made via send/receive... It has the same errors during fsck. The main disk still hasn't found any file (apart from a few, others for which none of my hash sums were stored at all) that doesn't verify. So I guess there's definitely some bug

[PATCH] btrfs: Continue replace when set_block_ro failed

xfstests/011 failed in node with small_size filesystem. Can be reproduced by following script: DEV_LIST="/dev/vdd /dev/vde" DEV_REPLACE="/dev/vdf" do_test() { local mkfs_opt="$1" local size="$2" dmesg -c >/dev/null umount $SCRATCH_MNT &>/dev/null echo

Check tree block failed

Hi, I attached an 3TB drive to my ODroid, created a BTRFS FS on it an copied some data on it. (with RSYNC) uname -a: Linux odroid 3.10.92-63 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Nov 11 16:48:34 BRST 2015 armv7l armv7l armv7l GNU/Linux btrfs fi show /dev/sdc1: Label: none uuid:

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Continue replace when set_block_ro failed

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Zhao Lei wrote: > xfstests/011 failed in node with small_size filesystem. > Can be reproduced by following script: > DEV_LIST="/dev/vdd /dev/vde" > DEV_REPLACE="/dev/vdf" > > do_test() > { > local mkfs_opt="$1" > local

Re: [PATCH 1/9] vfs: add COPY_FILE_CLONE_ONLY flag

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 07:17:08AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: > To tell file system not to return partial success in the > .copy_file_range method. This is useful to implement the > clone (or reflink) functionality. The return value is only part of it, the other part is to make it atomic. Thus I

Re: [RFCv3.1 00/11] xfstests: test the nfs/cifs/btrfs/xfs reflink/dedupe ioctls

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:36:35AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:34:27AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Bleargh, _require_*_dedupe forgot to check for ENOTTY output, so all the > > dedupe > > tests should have _notrun. > > > > Also, generic/806 was calling the

Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk

On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 07:05 +, Duncan wrote: > 8 TiB disks -- are those the disk-managed SMR "archive" disks I've > read > about on a number of threads? Yes... but... > If so, that hardware is almost certainly the cause, as they're known > to > be problematic on current kernels.  While most

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: mkfs: increase buffer size in is_ssd

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Michael Lass wrote: > In current versions of util-linux the buffer passed to > blkid_devno_to_wholedisk > has to be sufficiently large to not only hold the device name but the complete > target of the /sys/dev/block/ symlink. This was changed only

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: allow device deletion using 'missing' keyword again

On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 01:26:24AM +0100, Alexander Fougner wrote: > Device deletion procedures ensures the device is a block device. > This patch introduces 'missing' as keyword again, correctly > passing it on to the kernel instead of complaining about > 'missing' not being a block device. > >

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Hello, I succeeded to delete illegal snapshot with command: btrfs subvolume delete /.snapshots/741/snapshot When I have done btrfs balance / -dusage=0 -musage=0 increasing value up to 4o I did not have issues. But on value 4- for-dusage= and -musage= I got message that there is no space left on

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: find-root: Add support to search chunk root

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:53:41AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Add support to search chunk root, as we only need to search tree roots > in system chunk, which should be very easy to add, just iterate in > system chunks. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Applied, thanks. I've

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Hello, Here are outputs of commands as you requested: btrfs fi df / Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB Metadata, DUP: total=1.12GiB, used=377.25MiB GlobalReserve, single: total=128.00MiB, used=0.00B btrfs fi show Label: none uuid:

btrfs-replace OOM on 2GB machine

Hi, while evaluating btrfs for production use I ended up with a degraded two-disk RAID1 with one disk missing, and wanted to perform a "btrfs replace" to rebuild the RAID1. However, the replace operation causes most of my userland to be OOM-killed and aborts eventually, at about 30% progress, on

[PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: use global reserve when deleting unused block group after ENOSPC

From: Filipe Manana It's possible to reach a state where the cleaner kthread isn't able to start a transaction to delete an unused block group due to lack of enough free metadata space and due to lack of unallocated device space to allocate a new metadata block group as well.

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 11:12, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, I succeeded to delete illegal snapshot with command: btrfs subvolume delete /.snapshots/741/snapshot When I have done btrfs balance / -dusage=0 -musage=0 increasing value up to 4o I did not have issues. But on value 4- for-dusage= and -musage= I

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Enable -d dup for single device

On 2015-11-13 09:11, Zhao Lei wrote: Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it is in mixed mode, because following reason: 1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect. 2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d dup can not help. 3: Half

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: Check periodic.timer_fd's value before use

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:06:53PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > periodic.timer_fd's value is 0 on inititlize-failed case, > if no value-checking before read(), the code will run as > read(STDIN). > > This patch fixed above case. > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei Applied, thanks.

Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: cleanup cmd_device_usage

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:59:38PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > 1: Remove more_than_one variant, use iterator's value instead > 2: Remove "out" mark, use break instead. > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: Fix partitioned loop devices resolve.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:10:51AM +0100, Florian Margaine wrote: > New patch is attached. Applied with some modifications, thanks. > +/* > + * Takes a loop device path (e.g. /dev/loop0) and returns > + * the associated file (e.g. /images/my_btrfs.img) using > + * loopdev API > + */ > +static

[PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: fixes for an ENOSPC issue that left a fs unusable

From: Filipe Manana The following pair of changes fix an issue observed in a production environment where any file operations done by a package manager failed with ENOSPC. Forcing a commit of the current transaction (through "sync") didn't help, a balance operation with the

Re: 4.2-rc6: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > > Seen today: > > [150110.712196] [ cut here ] > [150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230! > [150110.841067] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP > [150110.904472] Modules

Re: Potential to loose data in case of disk failure

On 2015-11-13 09:51, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: If so then I think this is a trap, and mkfs.btrfs should at least warn (or require --force) if two partitions are on the same drive for raid1/raid5/raid10. Does mdadm warn in the

Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: cmds-device: use warning/error for error message

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:59:37PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > Switch to common warning()/error() for cmds-device.c. > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei Applied, thanks. I did some tweaks so the messages look consistent and adjusted indentation of some lines, dunno why it's aligned

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Enable -d dup for single device

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:11:37PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it > is in mixed mode, because following reason: > 1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect. > 2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, Here are outputs of commands as you requested: btrfs fi df / Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB Metadata, DUP: total=1.12GiB, used=377.25MiB GlobalReserve, single: total=128.00MiB, used=0.00B

Where is the disk space?

root@polgara:/mnt/btrfs_root# du -sh * 28G @ 28G @_hourly.20151113_08:04:01 4.0K@_last 4.0K@_last_rw 28G @_rw.20151113_00:02:01 root@polgara:/mnt/btrfs_root# df -h . Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sdb556G 40G 5.4G 89% /mnt/btrfs_root

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, Here are outputs of commands as you requested: btrfs fi df / Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB,

Re: Where is the disk space?

Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:41:01 -0800 as excerpted: > Any ideas? Without addressing the main question, a couple targets of opportunity: 1) A quick balance with -mprofiles=single should kill those unused single metadata and system mkfs.btrfs legacies so you don't have to see

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:40:44PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: > >>>Hello, > >>> > >>>Here are outputs of commands as you requested: >

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Vedran, I see 2 snapshot numbers (748 and 741), maybe copy-paste error or typo, but can you confirm that the illegal one is deleted? /Henk On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Vedran Vucic wrote: > Hello, > > Here are outputs of commands as you requested: > btrfs fi df / >

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: > >Hello, > > > >Here are outputs of commands as you requested: > > btrfs fi df / > >Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB > >System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB > >Metadata,

Re: 4.2-rc6: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230

Am 13.11.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Filipe Manana: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Seen today: [150110.712196] [ cut here ] [150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230! [150110.841067] invalid opcode:

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: fixes for an ENOSPC issue that left a fs unusable

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 03:20:30PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > The following pair of changes fix an issue observed in a production > environment where any file operations done by a package manager failed > with ENOSPC. Forcing a commit of the

Re: [RFCv3.1 00/11] xfstests: test the nfs/cifs/btrfs/xfs reflink/dedupe ioctls

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:12:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:08:22AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I think I got all the tests renumbered correctly and fixed all the other > > bugs. > > I'd like to send the updated patchpile to Dave tomorrow, but if you have

Re: Where is the disk space?

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 07:45:21PM +, Duncan wrote: > Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:41:01 -0800 as excerpted: > > > Any ideas? > > Without addressing the main question, a couple targets of opportunity: > > 1) A quick balance with -mprofiles=single should kill those unused single

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Hello, My system is on laptop that is not heavy duty such as servers. openSuse 13.2 was installed approx 2 months ago so the issue did not appear due to longterm lack of administration or maintenance. Please let me know if I can help in any other way. Thanks, vedran On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at

[RFCv3.2 00/12] xfstests: test the nfs/cifs/btrfs/xfs reflink/dedupe ioctls

Hi all, This is part of the third revision of an RFC for adding to XFS support for tracking reverse-mappings of physical blocks to file and metadata; and support for mapping multiple file logical blocks to the same physical block, more commonly known as reflinking. This patchset aims to make

[PATCH 01/12] test-scripts: test migration scripts

Add two scripts: "nextid" finds the next available test ID number in a group, and "mvtest" relocates a test, fixes the golden output, and moves the group entry for that test. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- mvtest | 58

[PATCH 07/12] reflink: test accuracy of free block counts

Check that the free block counts seem to be handled correctly in the reflink operation and subsequent attempts to rewrite reflinked copies. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/150 | 78 +++ tests/generic/150.out |4 ++

[PATCH 08/12] reflink: test error conditions due to bad inputs

Check that we can feed bad inputs to reflink/dedupe and it'll reject them. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/157 | 122 + tests/generic/157.out | 25 ++ tests/generic/158 | 123

[PATCH 10/12] reflink: concurrent operations tests

Make sure that running reflink ops while other IO is ongoing doesn't break the filesystem. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/161 | 79 + tests/generic/161.out |6 +++ tests/generic/162 | 95

free space is missing after dist upgrade on lzo compressed vol

I was running Lubuntu 14.04 on btrfs with lzo compresssion on, with the following partition scheme: sda5 232M /boot sda6 16G / sda7 104G /home (sda5 is ext4) I did 2 distribution upgrades, one after the other, to 15.04, then 15.10, since the upgrade utility would not go directly to the

Re: Where is the disk space?

Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:01:58 -0800 as excerpted: > I'm still seeing 39GB used for 28GB of actual data, but I definitely > fixed one bit already thanks to you. For the data side, I think I understand what's going on with the space, but am not in sufficient mastery of the

Re: free space is missing after dist upgrade on lzo compressed vol

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:33:23PM -0600, Brenton Chapin wrote: > I was running Lubuntu 14.04 on btrfs with lzo compresssion on, with > the following partition scheme: > > sda5 232M /boot > sda6 16G / > sda7 104G /home > > (sda5 is ext4) > > I did 2 distribution upgrades, one after the

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 14:55, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:40:44PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, Here are outputs of

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.4 branch is ready for pulling: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.4 Some of this got cherry-picked from a github repo this week, but I verified the patches. We have three small scrub cleanups and a collection of fixes.

[PATCH 11/12] reflink: test that CoW writes fail when we're out of space

Ensure that copy-on-writing a reflinked file when there's no free disk space reflects the desired ENOSPC back to userspace during the write call. Tests the buffered IO, direct IO, and mmap write paths. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/171 | 107

[PATCH 09/12] xfs: test xfs-specific reflink pieces

Check that the various XFS tools still work properly on reflinked XFSes. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/xfs/127 | 79 tests/xfs/127.out |6 ++ tests/xfs/128 | 149 +

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:55:20 + as excerpted: > receive is implemented almost exclusively in userspace, with only a > couple of ioctls for mucking around with the UUIDs at the end. I wasn't aware of that and had assumed kernel space. Apart from the topic of discussion

[PATCH 02/12] btrfs: move btrfs reflink tests to generic

Move the cp --reflink tests from btrfs/ to generic/ since xfs now supports that ioctl. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/btrfs/026 | 92 - tests/btrfs/026.out | 16 --- tests/btrfs/027 | 109

[PATCH 03/12] reflink: add test support routines to a separate file

Put all the reflink/dedupe-related test support routines in a separate file, then modify the existing reflink tests to use them. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- common/rc | 51 +-- common/reflink| 185

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Hello, I guess that it might be bug in kernel. I was successful this: btrfs balance start / -dusage=50 -musage=35 musage above 35 caused ENOSPC message. Otherwise it was good. Thanks on support, vedran On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13,

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:11:46PM +, Duncan wrote: > Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:55:20 + as excerpted: > > > receive is implemented almost exclusively in userspace, with only a > > couple of ioctls for mucking around with the UUIDs at the end. > > I wasn't aware of that and

[PATCH 04/12] reflink: basic tests of the reflink and dedupe ioctls

Test the operation of the btrfs (and now xfs) reflink and dedupe ioctls at various file offsets and with matching and nonmatching files. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/116 | 92 +++ tests/generic/116.out |8 ++

[PATCH 12/12] reflink: test what happens when we hit resource limits

Add a few horrible opt-in stress tests to see what happens if we try to reflink the same block billions of times, and what happens if we run out of space while reflinking a file. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/175 | 99

[PATCH 06/12] reflink: test the various fallocate modes

Check that the variants of fallocate (allocate, punch, zero range, collapse range, insert range) do the right thing when they're run against a range of reflinked blocks. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/144 | 142

[PATCH 05/12] reflink: test CoW behaviors of reflinked files

Ensure that CoW happens correctly with buffered, directio, and mmap writes. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- tests/generic/138 | 152 + tests/generic/138.out | 19 ++ tests/generic/139 | 151

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix sleeping inside atomic context in qgroup rescan worker

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:04:42AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > We are holding a btree path with spinning locks and then we attempt to > clone an extent buffer, which calls kmem_cache_alloc() and this function > can sleep, causing the following

Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk

在 2015年11月13日 05:51, Christoph Anton Mitterer 写道: Hey. I get these errors on fsck'ing a btrfs: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk bad extent [5993525280768, 5993525297152), type mismatch with chunk bad extent [5993525297152, 5993525313536), type mismatch with

Btrfs device initialisation is quite slow

Hey all I've been trying to figure out why my system (home desktop) is taking so long to boot. Systemd-analyze tells me that my root filesystem partition (which is btrfs) takes ~11 seconds to become active, and I'm curious as to why and whether or not I can optimise this. The primary disk has 4

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

在 2015年11月13日 18:20, Anand Jain 写道: Thanks for commenting. I'm sorry but I didn't quite see the benefit of a spare device. Aside from what Duncan said (and I happen to agree with him), there is also the fact that hot-spares are (at least traditionally in most RAID systems) usually used

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:13:41 + as excerpted: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:11:46PM +, Duncan wrote: >> Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:55:20 + as excerpted: >> >> > receive is implemented almost exclusively in userspace, with only a >> > couple of ioctls for

Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk

On Sat, 2015-11-14 at 09:22 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Manually checked they all. thanks a lot :-) > Strangely, they are all OK... although it's a good news for you. Oh man... you're s mean ;-D > They are all tree blocks and are all in metadata block group. and I guess that's...

Re: free space is missing after dist upgrade on lzo compressed vol

Thanks for the ideas. Sadly, no snapshots, unless btrfs does that by default. Never heard of snapper before. Don't see how open files could be a problem, since the computer has been rebooted several times. I wonder... could the distribution upgrade have moved all the old files into a hidden

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

Thanks for the comments. Let's take the following example: 1) 2 RAID1 + 1 spare (A + B) + C 2) 3 RAID1 (A + B + C) At least in normal operation case, case 1) makes device C useless, and Yes. For case 2), we can just relocate and recover the bad chunks in B. It it should only

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

Thanks for comments. On 11/13/2015 03:21 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2015-11-09 11:56, Anand Jain wrote: These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support for you review and comments. Hi Anand, is there any reason to put this kind of logic in the kernel space ? I

Re: Potential to loose data in case of disk failure

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > On 2015-11-12 13:47, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: >>> That's a pretty unusual setup, so I'm not surprised there's no quick and >>> easy answer. The best solution in my opinion would be to shuffle your >>> partitions around and

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-13 05:17, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for the comments. Sorry for the delay. Trying to find out if there is any pending concerns... FWIW, I'm planning on setting up a VM to test this over the weekend (I would have already, but I've been kind of busy at work this week), so I'll

Re: [RFCv3.1 00/11] xfstests: test the nfs/cifs/btrfs/xfs reflink/dedupe ioctls

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:08:22AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > I think I got all the tests renumbered correctly and fixed all the other bugs. > I'd like to send the updated patchpile to Dave tomorrow, but if you have a few > spare cycles would you mind giving this a quick test to make sure I

[PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Enable -d dup for single device

Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it is in mixed mode, because following reason: 1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect. 2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d dup can not help. 3: Half performance comparing with single

[PATCH v2] btrfs: properly set the termination value of ctx->pos in readdir

The value of ctx->pos in the last readdir call is supposed to be set to INT_MAX due to 32bit compatibility, unless 'pos' is intentially set to a larger value, then it's LLONG_MAX. There's a report from PaX SIZE_OVERFLOW plugin that "ctx->pos++" overflows

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: properly set the termination value of ctx->pos in readdir

On 11/13/15 13:44, David Sterba wrote: > The value of ctx->pos in the last readdir call is supposed to be set to > INT_MAX due to 32bit compatibility, unless 'pos' is intentially set to a > larger value, then it's LLONG_MAX. > > There's a report from PaX SIZE_OVERFLOW plugin that "ctx->pos++" >