On 01/19/2019 01:33 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:32:27PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
find_device and its helper functions are as below
btrfs_find_device_by_devspec()
btrfs_find_device_missing_or_by_path()
btrfs_find_device_by_path()
btrfs_find_device()
find_devic
Both btrfs_find_device() and find_device() does the same things expect
that latter function is not keen in seed device in the scan-context. So
merge them.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
v2: use bool instead of int.
use positive meaning instead of negative.
conflict fix: due to 1b3922a8bc7
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:02 AM Stefan K wrote:
>
> > Btrfs raid10 really should not be called raid10. It sets up the wrong
> > user expectation entirely. It's more like raid0+1, except even that is
> > deceptive because in theory a legit raid0+1 you can lose multiple
> > drives on one side of th
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>
> > It is actually more like RAID-1E which is supported by some hardware
> > RAID HBA. The difference is that RAID-1E is usually using strict
> > sequential block placement algorithm and assumes disks of equal size,
> > while btrfs raid10
I just tagged v10 of the python btrfs library.
https://github.com/knorrie/python-btrfs/
Somewhere in the next days I'll update pypi and will prepare debian
packages for unstable and stretch-backports.
Note: I will be converting the branches in git for debian packaging to
the DEP14 standard, also
Thanks for the info, unfortunately because this was a prod environment
we had to recreate the vm. We'll respond to this thread with more what
you asked for when this happens next because it seems to be a common
occurrence for us.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 2:19 PM Liu Bo wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:58 AM Krishna Mannem wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I work on Concourse-CI (https://concourse-ci.org/). It's a container
> based CI system where we create volumes using Btrfs. Due to the nature
> of Concourse, btrfs subvolumes are short lived ( sometimes a few
> seconds if it's a sm
Hi,
I work on Concourse-CI (https://concourse-ci.org/). It's a container
based CI system where we create volumes using Btrfs. Due to the nature
of Concourse, btrfs subvolumes are short lived ( sometimes a few
seconds if it's a small automation task, sometimes hours if its a long
build and test sui
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 01/12/2019 01:17 AM, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Filipe Manana
> >
> > In a few places we are allocating a device using the GFP_KERNEL flag when
> > it is not safe to do so, because if reclaim is triggered it can caus
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:31:53PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Preparatory patch to add forget cli.
>
> Re-factors btrfs_free_stale_devices() to obtain return status. As
> this function can fail if it can't find the given path (returns -ENOENT)
> or trying to delete a mounted device (returns -EBUSY
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:32:27PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> find_device and its helper functions are as below
>
> btrfs_find_device_by_devspec()
> btrfs_find_device_missing_or_by_path()
> btrfs_find_device_by_path()
> btrfs_find_device()
> find_device()
>
> Its quite confusing and too frag
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:13:26PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 01/17/2019 11:49 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:32:33PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >> Refactor btrfs_find_device() to return standard error code.
> >
> > Do you intend to add more error codes?
>
> No
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:13:19PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> On 01/17/2019 11:54 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:32:30PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >> btrfs_find_device_by_path() is a helper function, drop the btrfs prefix
> >> and the suffix _path is too generic, in fact as
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:00:57AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> qgroups will do the old roots lookup at delayed ref time, which could be
> while walking down the extent root while running a delayed ref. This
> should be fine, except we specifically lock eb's in the backref walking
> code irrespecti
Stefan K kirjoitti 18.1.2019 klo 9.02:
WTF?! really, so with btrfs raid10 I can't lose more than one drive? that
sucks, that an advantage of raid 10!
and the crazy thing is, thats not documented, not in the manpage nor btrfs wiki
and and thats is very important.
thats unbelievable ..
You sho
15 matches
Mail list logo