On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:50PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:08:32PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote:
>> These set/get functions defined by BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS macro is
>> missing the prefix stack. I can't add an extent buffer version set/get
>> function as the result of th
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:22:09PM -0500, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>Until v4.14, this warning was very infrequent:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 18172 at fs/btrfs/backref.c:1391
> find_parent_nodes+0xc41/0x14e0
> Modules linked in: [...]
> CPU: 3 PID: 18172 Comm: bees Tainted: G D W
Until v4.14, this warning was very infrequent:
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 18172 at fs/btrfs/backref.c:1391
find_parent_nodes+0xc41/0x14e0
Modules linked in: [...]
CPU: 3 PID: 18172 Comm: bees Tainted: G D WL 4.11.9-zb64+ #1
Hardware name: System manufacturer Sy
To make debugging a little easier.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
tests/mkfs-tests/010-minimal-size/test.sh | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tests/mkfs-tests/010-minimal-size/test.sh
b/tests/mkfs-tests/010-minimal-size/test.sh
index f75a22d8ff8d..f33b8aa399f4 100755
--- a/tests
Commit 0b2161becf8e ("btrfs-progs: mkfs: Prevent temporary system chunk
to use space in reserved 1M range") changed the hard-coded temporary
chunk layout to avoid the first 1M.
However this also affects btrfs_min_dev_size() which still assume
temporary chunks starts at device offset 0.
This patch
@chunk_objectid of btrfs_make_block_group() function is always fixed to
BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID, so there is no need to pass it as parameter
explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
v2:
Rebase to devel branch, as I introduced some conflict.
---
cmds-check.c | 5 ++---
convert/main.c | 4
ein posted on Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:38:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 01/22/2018 09:59 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> And to tie up a loose end, xfs has somewhat different design principles
>> and may well not be particularly sensitive to the dirty_* settings,
>> while btrfs, due to COW and other design choi
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 02:36:09PM -0700, Edmund Nadolski wrote:
>
>
>On 01/23/2018 12:36 AM, Lu Fengqi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:35:43PM -0700, Edmund Nadolski wrote:
>>> On 1/22/18 5:58 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 21.01.2018 21:08, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> This warnin
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> This is extremely important to understand. BTRFS and ZFS are essentially
> the only filesystems available on Linux that actually validate things enough
> to notice this reliably (ReFS on Windows probably does, and I think whatever
>
On 2018年01月24日 00:42, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:56:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> When creating btrfs, mkfs.btrfs will firstly create a temporary system
>> chunk as basis, and then created needed trees or new devices.
>>
>> However the layout temporary system chunk is hard
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Claes Fransson
wrote:
> I haven't noticed before that there is actually RAM-modules from
> different vendors in the laptop. One 8GB by Samsung, and one 4GB by
> Kingston!
If they have the correct tolerances, I don't think it's a problem.
Some memory controllers
On 01/23/2018 08:51 PM, waxhead wrote:
> Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> On 23.01.2018 16:20, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> We also had a discussion about the "backup roots" that are stored
>>> besides the superblock, and that they are "better than nothing" to help
>>> maybe recover somethin
On 01/23/2018 12:36 AM, Lu Fengqi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:35:43PM -0700, Edmund Nadolski wrote:
>> On 1/22/18 5:58 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21.01.2018 21:08, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
This warning appears during execution of the LOGICAL_INO ioctl and
appears to be
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:54:21PM -0800, Rosen Penev wrote:
>> As btrfs is specific to Linux, %m can be used instead of strerror(errno)
>> in format strings. This has some size reduction benefits for embedded
>> systems.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:11:00PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to draw some attention to a recent regression regarding
> a race condition when listing directories on btrfs. Your assistance in
> resolving this would be appreciated.
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bu
From: Josef Bacik
In fixing the readdir+pagefault deadlock I accidentally introduced a
stale entry regression in readdir. If we get close to full for the
temporary buffer, and then skip a few delayed deletions, and then try to
add another entry that won't fit, we will emit the entries we found a
Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 23.01.2018 16:20, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
On 01/23/2018 10:03 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 23.01.2018 09:03, waxhead wrote:
Note: This have been mentioned before, but since I see some issues
related to superblocks I think it would be good to bring up the ques
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:54:21PM -0800, Rosen Penev wrote:
> As btrfs is specific to Linux, %m can be used instead of strerror(errno)
> in format strings. This has some size reduction benefits for embedded
> systems.
Makes sense.
> glibc, musl, and uclibc-ng all support %m as a modifier to prin
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:13:06PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> @chunk_objectid of btrfs_make_block_group() function is always fixed to
> BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID, so there is no need to pass it as parameter
> explicitly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Can you please refresh this patch on top of cur
2018-01-23 14:06 GMT+01:00 Claes Fransson :
> 2018-01-22 22:22 GMT+01:00 Hugo Mills :
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:06:58PM +0100, Claes Fransson wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I really like the features of BTRFS, especially deduplication,
>>> snapshotting and checksumming. However, when using it on my lap
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 08:21:29AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2018年01月09日 03:39, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 02:33:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
> >> ---
> >> tests/misc-tests/028-fi-usage-cross-check/test.sh | 46
> >> +++
>
Hi all,
I just wanted to draw some attention to a recent regression regarding
a race condition when listing directories on btrfs. Your assistance in
resolving this would be appreciated.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198483
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:56:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> When creating btrfs, mkfs.btrfs will firstly create a temporary system
> chunk as basis, and then created needed trees or new devices.
>
> However the layout temporary system chunk is hard-coded and uses
> reserved [0, 1M) range of devid
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:17:33AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 5.12.2017 10:39, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > Here is a series doing some minor code cleanups, hopefully making the code
> > more idiomatic and easier to follow. They should be pretty low-risk and
> > introduce no functional cha
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:29:57PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 23.01.2018 17:07, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:04:49PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/fsck-tests/029-superblock-recovery/test.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +#!/bin/
On 23.01.2018 17:07, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:04:49PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/fsck-tests/029-superblock-recovery/test.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+# Test that any superblock is correctly detected
+# and fix
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:04:49PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tests/fsck-tests/029-superblock-recovery/test.sh
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> >> +#!/bin/bash
> >> +# Test that any superblock is correctly detected
> >> +# and fixed by btrfs rescue
> >> +
> >> +source "$TOP/
On 23.01.2018 16:20, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 10:03 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> On 23.01.2018 09:03, waxhead wrote:
>>> Note: This have been mentioned before, but since I see some issues
>>> related to superblocks I think it would be good to bring up the question
>>> again.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:08:32PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote:
> These set/get functions defined by BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS macro is
> missing the prefix stack. I can't add an extent buffer version set/get
> function as the result of the function name conflict.
Why do you need to add the extent buffe
On 01/23/2018 10:03 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> On 23.01.2018 09:03, waxhead wrote:
>> Note: This have been mentioned before, but since I see some issues
>> related to superblocks I think it would be good to bring up the question
>> again.
>>
>> [...]
>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/
2018-01-23 13:51 GMT+01:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn :
> On 2018-01-22 21:35, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Claes Fransson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I really like the features of BTRFS, especially deduplication,
>>> snapshotting and checksumming. However, when using it
2018-01-23 3:35 GMT+01:00 Chris Murphy :
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Claes Fransson
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I really like the features of BTRFS, especially deduplication,
>> snapshotting and checksumming. However, when using it on my laptop the
>> last couple of years, it has became corrupted
2018-01-22 22:22 GMT+01:00 Hugo Mills :
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:06:58PM +0100, Claes Fransson wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I really like the features of BTRFS, especially deduplication,
>> snapshotting and checksumming. However, when using it on my laptop the
>> last couple of years, it has became corr
On 2018-01-22 21:35, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Claes Fransson
wrote:
Hi!
I really like the features of BTRFS, especially deduplication,
snapshotting and checksumming. However, when using it on my laptop the
last couple of years, it has became corrupted a lot of times
Instead of manually fiddling with the state of the task
(RUNNING->INTERRUPTIBLE->RUNNING) again just use schedule_timeout_interruptible
which adjusts the task state as needed. No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3
On 23.01.2018 09:03, waxhead wrote:
> Note: This have been mentioned before, but since I see some issues
> related to superblocks I think it would be good to bring up the question
> again.
>
> According to the information found in the wiki:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/On-disk_Forma
On 01/22/2018 09:59 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Sebastian Ochmann posted on Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:27:55 +0100 as excerpted:
> [...]
> On 2018年01月20日 18:47, Sebastian Ochmann wrote:
Hello,
I would like to describe a real-world use case where btrfs does not
perform well for me. I'm reco
37 matches
Mail list logo
