Hi,
I have a raid1 with 3 drives: 698, 465 and 232 GB. I copied 1,7 GB data to that
raid1, balanced the filesystem and then removed the bigger drive (hotplug).
The data was still available. Now I copied the /root directory to the raid1. It
showed up via ls -l. Then I plugged in the missing har
Debian's default installer (1) can not create a BTRFS raid array
during installation, and (2) installs to the default subvol of the
BTRFS target. The default subvol is 5 (BTRFS root) unless (i) prior
to installation a BTRFS file-system was created, (ii) the default
subvol is set to something other
Before this patch, although btrfsck will check qgroups if quota is
enabled, it always return 0 even qgroup numbers are corrupted.
Fix it by allowing return value from report_qgroups function (formally
defined as print_qgroup_difference).
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
cmds-check.c| 8 ++--
Qgroup verify codes will read fs root to check if the subvolume exists.
But it forgot to free the extent buffer read out, only freeing the
memory.
Fix it by also freeing the extent buffers.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
qgroup-verify.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
Read qgroup status for its flags like QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN and
QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_INCONSISTENT.
This will help to avoid false alert for case like qgroup rescan is still
running when un-mounted.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
qgroup-verify.c | 33 +++--
1 file chan
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116601
Call traces attached to the bug.
The short version is that after (accidentally) adding a 256K 2nd
device to an existing Btrfs (seed) volume, there's a warning then an
oops and then the system becomes unstable and needs to be rebooted
soon thereaf
+linux-btrfs and with new policy
On 04/16/2016 08:37 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Zachary Vance posted on Sat, 16 Apr 2016 13:08:17 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> Reproduction case after running into the same problem as Paride
>> Legovini:
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/48706/match=sen
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/15 09:00 -0700:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:00:06AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/14 14:42 -0700:
Hi Qu,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:38:40PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
btrfs
David Sterba wrote on 2016/04/15 13:17 +0200:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 02:24:34PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
New btrfs-convert is using a lot of new macro in e2fsprogs 1.42.
Unfortunately the new compatible layer for older e2fsprogs is still
under development.
It hasn't been released yet so it's
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2016-04-09 03:24, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> Yauhen Kharuzhy posted on Fri, 08 Apr 2016 22:53:00 +0300 as excerpted:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:23:28PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I would personally suggest add
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Dmitry Katsubo
wrote:
> Dear btrfs community,
>
> I have the following setup:
>
> # btrfs fi show /home
> Label: none uuid: 865f8cf9-27be-41a0-85a4-6cb4d1658ce3
> Total devices 3 FS bytes used 55.68GiB
> devid1 size 52.91GiB used 0.00B path /de
On 2016-04-14 22:30, Dmitry Katsubo wrote:
> Dear btrfs community,
>
> I have the following setup:
>
> # btrfs fi show /home
> Label: none uuid: 865f8cf9-27be-41a0-85a4-6cb4d1658ce3
> Total devices 3 FS bytes used 55.68GiB
> devid1 size 52.91GiB used 0.00B path /dev/sdd2
>
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Zachary Vance wrote:
> To recap, the basic problem is that you can get into a state where
> "btrfs-send -c" fails for a subvolume, with "ERROR: parent
> determination failed for 9622". It appears the problem happens when
> the 'parent_uuid' does not exist.
>
> I'm
Apologies for the repeat send for anyone that gets this twice; I was
informed there was a problem with my mail setup and many ISPs would
block the first message. I have also simplified the reproduction case.
---
Reproduction case after running into the same problem as Paride
Legovini:
http://art
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:28:49AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Note this is a testing VM, no user data is at risk
>>
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116331
>
> From the call stack we can tell that btrfs_root_bytenr() returns 0
> som
-Rajendra/Btrfs-subpage-blocksize-Define-extent_buffer_head/20160417-202933
config: xtensa-allyesconfig (attached as .config)
reproduce:
wget
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/plain/sbin/make.cross
-O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# save
-btrfs_punch_hole-Fix-uptodate-blocks-check/20160417-201821
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
next
config: i386-randconfig-x008-04171808 (attached as .config)
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=i386
All
On Thursday 14 Apr 2016 19:08:09 Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> Btrfs assumes block size to be the same as the machine's page
> size. This would mean that a Btrfs instance created on a 4k page size
> machine (e.g. x86) will not be mountable on machines with larger page
> sizes (e.g. PPC64/AARCH64). This
In non-subpage-blocksize scenario, BTRFS_HEADER_FLAG_WRITTEN flag
prevents Btrfs code from writing into an extent buffer whose pages are
under writeback. This facility isn't sufficient for achieving the same
in subpage-blocksize scenario, since we have more than one extent buffer
mapped to a page.
In order to handle multiple extent buffers per page, first we need to create a
way to handle all the extent buffers that are attached to a page.
This patch creates a new data structure 'struct extent_buffer_head', and moves
fields that are common to all extent buffers from 'struct extent_buffer' t
find_delalloc_range indirectly depends on EXTENT_UPTODDATE to make sure that
the delalloc range returned intersects with the file range mapped by the
page. Since we now track "uptodate" state in a per-page
bitmap (i.e. in btrfs_page_private->bstate), this commit makes an explicit
check to make sure
In case of subpage-blocksize, the file blocks to be punched may map only
part of a page. For file blocks inside such pages, we need to check for
the presence of BLK_STATE_UPTODATE flag.
Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
---
fs/btrfs/file.c | 66 +
In case of subpage-blocksize, the file blocks to be punched may map only
part of a page. For file blocks inside such pages, we need to check for
the presence of BLK_STATE_UPTODATE flag.
Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
---
fs/btrfs/file.c | 66 +
In the same vein, I've also made
https://github.com/pwaller/sharedextents - which exits with status 0
when there are shared extents, and 1 otherwise; it also prints the
number and percentage of shared bytes.
Here it is running on the file and its reflink copy from "A BTRFS
mystery" in the previous
On 15/04/16 21:16, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Mike Christie
>
> The last patch added a REQ_OP_FLUSH for request_fn drivers
> and the next patch renames REQ_FLUSH to REQ_PREFLUSH which
> will be used by file systems and make_request_fn drivers so
> they can send a write/flush combo.
>
> T
Hi All,
I just released a toy program, "fienode" which computes a SHA1 of the
physical extents of a file.
Link: https://github.com/pwaller/fienode
There are some questions around on the internet of how to find CoW
copies, which I've answered:
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/263309/how-t
26 matches
Mail list logo
