On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
>
> Am Mon, 4 Apr 2016 03:50:54 -0400
> schrieb Jérôme Poulin :
>
> > How is it possible to get rid of the referenced csum errors if they do
> > not exist? Also, the expected checksum looks
On 04/08/2016 04:00 AM, Yauhen Kharuzhy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 09:30:48AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
Hot replace / auto replace is important volume manager feature
and is critical to the data center operations, so that the degraded
volume can be brought back to a healthy state at the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 06:44:20PM +0200, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like I just found an exciting new corner case.
> kernel 4.4.6 with btrfs ~4.6, so 4.6 should reproduce.
>
> Try on a fresh volume:
>
> $btrfs subvolume create foo
> Create subvolume './foo'
> $sync
> $btrfs
Ivan P wrote on 2016/04/07 17:33 +0200:
After running btrfsck --readonly again, the output is:
===
Checking filesystem on /dev/sdb
UUID: 013cda95-8aab-4cb2-acdd-2f0f78036e02
checking extents
checking free space cache
block group 632463294464 has wrong amount of
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 09:30:48AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Hot replace / auto replace is important volume manager feature
> and is critical to the data center operations, so that the degraded
> volume can be brought back to a healthy state at the earliest and
> without manual intervention.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 19:08, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ank Ular wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From the ouput of 'dmesg', the section:
>>> [ 20.998071] BTRFS: device label
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Holger Hoffstätte
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like I just found an exciting new corner case.
> kernel 4.4.6 with btrfs ~4.6, so 4.6 should reproduce.
>
> Try on a fresh volume:
>
> $btrfs subvolume create foo
> Create subvolume './foo'
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:21:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> I ran into one soft lockup with my patch only. So I assume it's not
> caused by your inherit patch though.
> But I didn't reproduce it once more. Not sure why.
>
> What's the reproduce rate in your environment?
It happens every time
Hi,
Looks like I just found an exciting new corner case.
kernel 4.4.6 with btrfs ~4.6, so 4.6 should reproduce.
Try on a fresh volume:
$btrfs subvolume create foo
Create subvolume './foo'
$sync
$btrfs subvolume snapshot foo foo-1
Create a snapshot of 'foo' in './foo-1'
$sync
$mv foo-1 foo.new
On 7 April 2016 at 17:33, Ivan P wrote:
>
> After running btrfsck --readonly again, the output is:
>
> ===
> Checking filesystem on /dev/sdb
> UUID: 013cda95-8aab-4cb2-acdd-2f0f78036e02
> checking extents
> checking free space cache
> block
After running btrfsck --readonly again, the output is:
===
Checking filesystem on /dev/sdb
UUID: 013cda95-8aab-4cb2-acdd-2f0f78036e02
checking extents
checking free space cache
block group 632463294464 has wrong amount of free space
failed to load free space cache for
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 05:27:43PM +0200, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
> Print e.g. "[devid:4].write_io_errs 6" instead of
> "[(null)].write_io_errs 6" when device is missing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrik Lundquist
Applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Sorry about the almost duplicate mail, Thunderbird's 'Send' button
happens to be right below 'Undo' when you open the edit menu...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On 2016-04-06 19:08, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ank Ular wrote:
From the ouput of 'dmesg', the section:
[ 20.998071] BTRFS: device label FSgyroA devid 9 transid 625039 /dev/sdm
[ 20.84] BTRFS: device label FSgyroA devid 10 transid
On 2016-04-06 19:08, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ank Ular wrote:
From the ouput of 'dmesg', the section:
[ 20.998071] BTRFS: device label FSgyroA devid 9 transid 625039 /dev/sdm
[ 20.84] BTRFS: device label FSgyroA devid 10 transid
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:02PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
>> > Test that an invalid parent qgroup does not cause snapshot create to
>> > force the
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the test and reporting.
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/06 19:43 -0700:
Hi Qu,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:04:54AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:11:56PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> Test that if we create a hard link for a file F in some directory A,
> then move some directory or file B from its parent directory C into
> directory A, fsync file F, power fail and
18 matches
Mail list logo