Hello world, python-btrfs

Hi! After playing around a bit for a few months with a bunch of proof-of-concept level scripts to be able to debug my btrfs file systems, the inevitable happened: https://github.com/knorrie/python-btrfs/ Currently, the primary goal of this module is to be able to inspect the internals of an

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix ->iterate_shared() by upgrading i_rwsem for delayed nodes

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:22:26PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:11:29PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:50:33PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > Commit fe742fd4f90f ("Revert "btrfs: switch to ->iterate_shared()"") > > > backed out the conversion

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: btrfs_check_super_valid: Allow 4096 as stripesize

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:07:58PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > Older btrfs-progs/mkfs.btrfs sets 4096 as the stripesize. Hence > restricting stripesize to be equal to sectorsize would cause super block > validation to return an error on architectures where PAGE_SIZE is not > equal to 4096. >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:21:50PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > t%2dsend%2demail%2dchandan%40linux.vnet.ibm.com) restrict the stripesize > > > to be either sectorsize or 4096. So I think these restrictions are good > > > enough to make sure we don't get into the situation explained by you.

[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: remove build fixup for qgroup_account_snapshot

Introduced in 2c1984f244838477aab ("btrfs: build fixup for qgroup_account_snapshot") as temporary bisectability build fixup. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 5 - 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: use new error message helper in qgroup_account_snapshot

We've renamed btrfs_std_error, this one is left from last merge. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c index f6e24cb423ae..4e74b5733030 100644

[PATCH 0/2] Remove bisect fixup

Hi, two patches to remove bisectability fixups of two independent branches introduced in 4.7 cycle. We don't need to wait for 4.8 to remove them as I thought. David Sterba (2): btrfs: use new error message helper in qgroup_account_snapshot btrfs: remove build fixup for

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: btrfsck: verify qgroups above level 0

Hi, I have non-qgroup related comments: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:02PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > --- a/qgroup-verify.c > +++ b/qgroup-verify.c > @@ -35,7 +35,8 @@ > /*#define QGROUP_VERIFY_DEBUG*/ > static unsigned long tot_extents_scanned = 0; > > -static void add_bytes(u64

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: free qgroup counts in btrfsck

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:01PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh Applied, thanks. -- 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

Re: [PATCH V2] Btrfs-progs: Initialize stripesize to the value of sectorsize

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:07:54AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > stripesize should ideally be set to the value of sectorsize. However > previous versions of btrfs-progs/mkfs.btrfs had set stripesize to a > value of 4096. On machines with PAGE_SIZE other than 4096, This could > lead to the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: qgroup: Fix a bug that fails to skip rescan running case

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:15:51AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Commit 6bdf962fe35a8648d(btrfs-progs: Read qgroup status for qgroup > verify) will read qgroup status, and then use it to skip qgroup > reporting. > > However since the rescan_running/inconsistent flags are only 1 bit long, > while

Re: Scrub aborts on newer kernels

On May 27, 2016 12:12:54 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Tyson Whitehead > wrote: > > Under the last several kernels versions (4.6 and I believe 4.4 and, 4.5) > > btrfs scrub aborts before completing. > > I can't reproduce this with btrfs-progs

btrfs multi device handling

I am trying to understand how btrfs handles multiple devices configured to a single btrfs file system. As compared to traditinal LVM2, say 2 physical disks /dev/sda, /dev/sdb are configured as single LVM2 pool and lvm provide an abstract view say /dev/mapper/VG1-LV1 where VG1 is name of volume

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: let super_stripesize match with sectorsize

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:48:05AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:01:41 AM Liu Bo wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:53:59PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 05:09:55 PM Liu Bo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:50:17PM