This adds a minimalistic Python 3 based monitoring script to the standard
tools called `btrfs-status`. The script itself depends only on a working
Python 3 installation, the `btrfs` command, and a regular `blkid` command
(the version of `blkid` in Busybox may not work, currently untested).
When c
When checking the validity of a DIR_ITEM item the index variable
is explicitly set to -1 so that the index check in find_inode_ref()
is ignored. This is necessary due to possible name collisions in DIR_ITEMS
(i.e multiple files with the same crc32c for their names, resulting in the
identical key->o
Verify that if we have an otherwise clean filesystem, containging collided
DIR_ITEM, btrfs check lowmem's mode can correctly handle those and not produce
any false positives.
This if fixed by commit titled:
"btrfs-progs: Fix DIR_ITEM checking in lowmem"
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
.
On 3/23/18 7:50 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月23日 19:14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23.03.2018 03:31, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
>>> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
>>> valid gen
During mount context, we aren't verifying the superblock checksum
for all the devices, instead, we verify it only for the
struct btrfs_fs_device::latest_bdev. This patch fixes it
by moving the checksum verification code from the function open_ctree()
into the function btrfs_read_dev_one_super().
B
Here are the threads/context [1] in which we read the superblock(s).
And this patchset will make sure the superblock csum are checked
when they are read in the respective context as show below [1].
This patchset is on top of
[PATCH v2.1] btrfs: check if the fsid in the primary sb and copy sb are
During the scan context, we aren't verifying if the superblock-
checksum is correct for the primary and its copies.
This patch fixes it by adding the checksum verification function
btrfs_check_super_csum() in the function btrfs_read_disk_super().
It would fail the scan only if the primary SB csum
During the btrfs dev scan make sure that other copies of superblock
contain the same fsid as the primary SB. So that we bring to the
user notice if the superblock has been overwritten.
mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdc
mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdb
dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sdc count=4K skip=64K seek=64K obs=1 ib
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:41:34PM +, Mason Fan wrote:
> I read from a SNIA's slide that btrfs will support host managed SMR
> device natively, and also saw it in "Features Currently in Development
> or Planned for Future Implementation" on the wiki. Does anyone know
> any further information?
On 2018年03月23日 19:14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 23.03.2018 03:31, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
>> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
>> valid generation and checksum.
>>
>> Although btrfs chec
On 2018年03月23日 19:04, james harvey wrote:
> If a system unexpectedly reboots during a balance, what's the best next step?
Normally, nothing.
Btrfs CoW is pretty safe for most case.
>
> From an ISO, read-only operations/mounting looks fine.
>
> Didn't want to make any writes until I ask, becau
On 23.03.2018 03:31, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
> valid generation and checksum.
>
> Although btrfs check could handle it and print error message like:
> leaf pa
If a system unexpectedly reboots during a balance, what's the best next step?
>From an ISO, read-only operations/mounting looks fine.
Didn't want to make any writes until I ask, because I see some reports
of bad things happening with a reboot during a balance, and don't want
to mis-step.
btrfs c
Pls, ignore this. I need to handle the mapped page in a better way.
Thanks, Anand
On 03/22/2018 09:01 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
During the btrfs dev scan make sure that other copies of superblock
contain the same fsid as the primary SB. So that we bring to the
users notice if the superblock has
On 2018年03月23日 16:20, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> The kernel code no longer has BTRFS_CRC32_SIZE and only uses
> btrfs_csum_sizes[]. So, update the progs code as well.
>
> Suggested-by: Qu Wenruo
> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono
> ---
> convert/common.c | 2 +-
> convert/main.c | 2 +-
> ctr
On 23.03.2018 10:28, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> This patch changes the behavior of rmdir(2) to allow it to delete
> an empty subvolume.
>
> In order to do that the core logic of subvolume deletion is moved from
> ioctl.c to inode.c and named as btrfs_delete_subvolume(), which is
> also called in t
This patch changes the behavior of rmdir(2) to allow it to delete
an empty subvolume.
In order to do that the core logic of subvolume deletion is moved from
ioctl.c to inode.c and named as btrfs_delete_subvolume(), which is
also called in the btrfs_rmdir() if a directory is an empty subvolume.
No
The kernel code no longer has BTRFS_CRC32_SIZE and only uses
btrfs_csum_sizes[]. So, update the progs code as well.
Suggested-by: Qu Wenruo
Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono
---
convert/common.c | 2 +-
convert/main.c | 2 +-
ctree.h | 3 +--
image/main.c | 4 ++--
mkfs/common.c
On 2018/03/20 17:50, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月20日 14:47, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono
>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo
>
> BTW this reminds me that, btrfs-progs is still using BTRFS_CRC32_SIZE
> macro which the original comment is for.
>
> It may be a good
Currently, the top-level subvolume lacks the UUID. As a result, both
non-snapshot subvolume and snapshot of top-level subvolume do not have
Parent UUID and cannot be distinguisued. Therefore "fi show" of
top-level lists all the subvolumes which lacks the UUID in
"Snapshot(s)" filed. Also, it lacks
On 2018/03/22 2:48, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:16:42PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>> Currently, the top-level subvolume lacks the UUID. As a result, both
>> non-snapshot subvolume and snapshot of top-level subvolume do not have
>> Parent UUID and cannot be distinguisued. T
21 matches
Mail list logo
