Hi,
I have encountered the issue where a btrfs filesystem would not mount due to
mismatch of super_total_bytes with fs_devices total_rw_bytes
I was able to fix it with the new parameter --fix-dev-size
Below I have listed the steps I took.
Reference
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg
Misono, Tomohiro posted on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:45:58 +0900 as excerpted:
> On 2017/10/16 18:22, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16.10.2017 07:56, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Add explanation of 'missing' for 'device remove'. This is only
>>> written in wikipage currently.
>>> +++ b/Doc
Hi All,
Been having issues on one machine and I was wondering if I could get
some help tracking the issue down.
# uname -a
Linux riperton 4.13.5-custom #1 SMP Sat Oct 7 18:28:16 EDT 2017 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
# btrfs --version
btrfs-progs v4.13.3
# btrfs fi show
Label: none uuid:
I am unable to mount one my my filesystems. The superblock thinks the
latest generation is 2220927 but I can't seem to find a root with that
number. I can find 2220926 and 2220928 but not 2220927. Is there
anything that I can do to recover this FS?
# btrfs check /dev/Cached/Backups
checksum v
On 2017/10/16 18:22, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 16.10.2017 07:56, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>> This patch updates help/document of "btrfs device remove" in two points:
>>
>> 1. Add explanation of 'missing' for 'device remove'. This is only
>> written in wikipage currently.
>> (https://btrfs.wi
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:27:40PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-10-16 12:57, Zoltan wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> In an ideal situation, scrubbing should not be an 'only if needed' thing,
> even for a regular array that isn't dealing with
On 10/16/2017 10:45 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:00:41PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
That was only an extra check to tackle few bugs around this
area, now its save to remove it.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(
Use ASSERT instead of BUG_ON.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
V2: Accepts David suggestion to keep the check as ASSERT.
Adds more comments to explain the context.
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 15 ---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btr
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 04:37:09PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote:
> Show the absolute subvol path for the associated level-0 qgroup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi
> ---
> Documentation/btrfs-qgroup.asciidoc | 2 +
> cmds-qgroup.c | 7 +-
> qgroup.c|
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 01:33:17PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:40:05PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> > Currently running 'btrfs device delete' can end up with losing data
> > raid profile (if any), this test is to reproduce the problem.
> >
> > The fix is
> > "Btrfs: avoid l
Currently running 'btrfs device delete' can end up with losing data raid
profile (if any), this test is to reproduce the problem.
The fix is
"Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device"
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
---
v2: - Add _require_btrfs_dev_del_by_devid and limit the test
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 09:57:11AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 13.10.2017 21:08, Liu Bo wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:06:57PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>> Currently running 'btrfs device delete' can end up with losin
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:33:10PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:10:35PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> > Compression code path has only flaged bios with REQ_OP_WRITE no matter
> > where the bios come from. This breaks the rule that sync writes and
> > writeback writes need to be
On 2017-10-16 12:57, Zoltan wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
you will need to scrub regularly to avoid data corruption
Is there any indication that a scrub is needed? Before actually doing
a scrub, is btrfs already aware that one of the devices did not
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:22:44PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/2017 04:51 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:38:50AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 10.10.2017 20:53, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>>We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
> >>>
Hi,
btrfs-progs version 4.13.3 have been released.
This is a bugfix release, namely for the subvolume listing and deletion
commands (again), and 'check --force'. Both were not caught by faulty tests,
now fixed.
Changes:
* check: fix --force, wrong check for a mounted block device
* build: fi
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> you will need to scrub regularly to avoid data corruption
Is there any indication that a scrub is needed? Before actually doing
a scrub, is btrfs already aware that one of the devices did not
receive all data due to being unavail
On 16/10/17 14:28, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:19:23AM +0300, Cerem Cem ASLAN wrote:
>> `btrfs send | btrfs receive` removes NOCOW attributes. Is it a bug or
>> a feature? If it's a feature, how can we keep these attributes if we
>> need to?
>
> This is a known defficiency of
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:26:30PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> Summary:
> Cleanup mount path by avoiding calling btrfs_mount() twice.
> No functional change. See below for longer explanation.
>
> Changelog:
> v3:
> Reorganized patches again into four and added comments to the source.
> Ea
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:05:19PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 29.09.2017 22:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Move the extent_op cleanup for an empty head ref to a helper function to
> > help simplify __btrfs_run_delayed_refs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/extent
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:07:21PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 29.09.2017 22:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Move this code out to a helper function to further simplivy
> > __btrfs_run_delayed_refs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 80
> > +
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Currently btrfs' code uses a mix of opencoded sizes and defines from sizes.h.
> Let's unifiy the code base to always use the symbolic constants. No functional
> changes
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:00:41PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> That was only an extra check to tackle few bugs around this
> area, now its save to remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/
On 29.09.2017 22:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
> This is just excessive information in the ref_head, and makes the code
> complicated. It is a relic from when we had the heads and the refs in
> the same tree, which is no longer the case. With this removal I've
> cleaned up a bunch of the cruft around
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:22:35PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
Patch added to queue, thanks.
> On a slightly different note the check-integrity.c file could really
> make use of the hashtable.h API but that's a bit more work. In any case
> I think what could be done to reduce the likelihood of
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 08:34:02AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> When one of the device is missing, bbio_error() takes care
> of setting the error status. And if its only IO that is
> pending in that stripe, it fails to check the status of the
> other IO at %bbio_error before setting the error %bi_sta
On 16.10.2017 17:17, David Sterba wrote:
> You confused me first by the bitwise operators here, while the patch is
> actually for the logical ones (and correct).
actualy I used ~ as the "not" and ^ as "and" rather than XOR.
Not A AND Not B == NOT(A or B) that's what I wanted to express ...
--
T
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:03:31PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 12.10.2017 11:43, Anand Jain wrote:
> > A cleanup patch, use need_full_stripe() to replace the open code.
>
> The code is equivalent by merit of De Morgan's law (I had to actually go
> look up the equivalence classes befor
Misono, Tomohiro posted on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:35:08 +0900 as excerpted:
> On 2017/10/16 12:30, Anand Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2017 01:27 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>> Misono, Tomohiro posted on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:18:50 +0900 as
>>> excerpted:
>>>
Add 'btrfs remove missing-all' to remove all
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:16:54AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> In btrfs_init_new_device() when btrfs_attach_transaction() fails we
> shouldn't call btrfs_end_transaction(). Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
> Fixes:
> btrfs: error out if btrfs_attach_transaction() fails
> ---
> Hi David,
>
On 29.09.2017 22:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Move this code out to a helper function to further simplivy
> __btrfs_run_delayed_refs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 80
> --
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 35 del
On 29.09.2017 22:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Move the extent_op cleanup for an empty head ref to a helper function to
> help simplify __btrfs_run_delayed_refs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 77
> ++
> 1 file change
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:43:21AM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>
> Code cleanup for better understanding:
> Variable needs_unlock to be called extent_locked to show state as opposed to
> action. Changed the type to int, to reduce code in the critical
> path.
>
> Sig
Currently btrfs' code uses a mix of opencoded sizes and defines from sizes.h.
Let's unifiy the code base to always use the symbolic constants. No functional
changes
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
Changes since v1:
* Don't modify values which represent counts rather than bytes
fs/btrfs/ctr
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 08:35:56AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> At few places we could use BLK_STS_OK and BLK_STS_NOSUPP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
> ---
> fs/btrfs/compression.c | 3 ++-
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++--
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:29:56PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Currently btrfs' code uses a mix of opencoded sizes and defines from sizes.h.
> Let's unifiy the code base to always use the symbolic constants. No functional
> changes
>
> -#define BTRFS_DEFRAG_BATCH 1024
> +#define BTRFS_DEFRAG
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:10:35PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> Compression code path has only flaged bios with REQ_OP_WRITE no matter
> where the bios come from. This breaks the rule that sync writes and
> writeback writes need to be differentiated from each other.
What are the implications of the cha
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:19:23AM +0300, Cerem Cem ASLAN wrote:
> `btrfs send | btrfs receive` removes NOCOW attributes. Is it a bug or
> a feature? If it's a feature, how can we keep these attributes if we
> need to?
This is a known defficiency of send protocol v1. And there are more,
listed on
Currently btrfs' code uses a mix of opencoded sizes and defines from sizes.h.
Let's unifiy the code base to always use the symbolic constants. No functional
changes
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/file.c
This code was first introduced in 31db9f7c23fb ("Btrfs: introduce
BTRFS_IOC_SEND for btrfs send/receive") and it was not functional, then it got
slightly refactored in e938c8ad543c ("Btrfs: code cleanups for send/receive"),
alas it was still dead. So let's remove it for good!
Signed-off-by: Nikola
On 2017-10-15 04:30, Zoltán Ivánfi wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the replies.
As you both pointed out, I shouldn't have described the issue having
to do with hotplugging. I got confused by this use-case being somewhat
emphasized in the description of the bug I linked to. As for the
question of why I th
On 16.10.2017 08:00, Steve Leung wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 03:14 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12.10.2017 20:44, Steve Leung wrote:
>>> I've run into a btrfs error trying to do a -j8 build of android on a
>>> btrfs
>>> filesystem exported over NFSv3. That in itself might be unwise, but
>>>
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Code cleanup for better understanding:
Variable needs_unlock to be called extent_locked to show state as opposed to
action. Changed the type to int, to reduce code in the critical
path.
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
---
Changes since v1:
fixed using extents_l
Greetings from Dr. mohammad ouattara.
Assalamu`Alaikum.
My Name is Dr. mohammad ouattara, I am a banker by profession. I'm
from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, West Africa. My reason for contacting
you is to transfer an abandoned $14.6M to your account.
The owner of this fund died since 2004 with his
On 16.10.2017 07:56, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> This patch updates help/document of "btrfs device remove" in two points:
>
> 1. Add explanation of 'missing' for 'device remove'. This is only
> written in wikipage currently.
> (https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Multiple_Devi
On 16.10.2017 11:22, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Since commit c11e36a29e84 ("Btrfs-progs: Do not force mixed block group
> creation unless '-M' option is specified"), mkfs no longer use mixed
> block group unless specified manually.
>
> This breaks the minimal device size calculation, which only consider
On 13.10.2017 23:51, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:38:50AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10.10.2017 20:53, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
>>> turns out that deleting a device could also result in the same
>>> problem
>>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:22:56PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>test_minimum_size() function is only called to check if provided device
>is large enough.
>
>However the minimal device size only needs to be calculated once, and
>can be reused everywhere.
>
>Refactor that function to make later modificat
Since commit c11e36a29e84 ("Btrfs-progs: Do not force mixed block group
creation unless '-M' option is specified"), mkfs no longer use mixed
block group unless specified manually.
This breaks the minimal device size calculation, which only considered
mixed block group use case.
This patch enhance
New test case to test if the minimal device size given by "mkfs.btrfs"
failure case is valid.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
v2:
Nothing
---
tests/common | 57 +++-
tests/mkfs-tests/010-small-image/test.sh | 51
test_minimum_size() function is only called to check if provided device
is large enough.
However the minimal device size only needs to be calculated once, and
can be reused everywhere.
Refactor that function to make later modification easier.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
v2:
New patch, cleanu
51 matches
Mail list logo
