On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:54 PM Omar Sandoval wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:18:13AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > CC: Ted
> >
> > What ever happened to read/write ext4 encrypted data API?
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=145030599010416&w=2
> >
> > Can we learn anything from the ex
BTW, there is one important compatibility problem related to all the BGI
related features.
Although I'm putting the BG_TREE feature as incompatible feature, but in
theory, it should be RO compatible.
As except extent/bg tree, we *should* read the fs without any problem.
But the problem is, curre
On 2019-10-21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 05:38:31AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > On 2019-10-21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > > From: Omar Sandoval
> > > >
> > > > Btrfs supports transparent compression
From: Marcos Paulo de Souza
While compiling btrfs-progs using clang I found an issue using
__attribute__(fallthrough), which does not seems to work in clang.
To solve this issue, the code was changed to use /* fallthrough */, which is the
same notation adopted by linux kernel.
Once these places
From: Marcos Paulo de Souza
When compiling with clang, this warning is shown:
common/utils.c:404:3: warning: declaration does not declare anything
[-Wmissing-declarations]
__attribute__ ((fallthrough));
This attribute seems to silence the same warning in GCC. Changing this
attr
From: Marcos Paulo de Souza
Avoid introducing new cases of implicit fallthrough by having this flag
always set.
Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza
---
Makefile | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 21bf2717..2f04e880 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefil
On 10/22/19 12:12 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:01:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
This patch set brings --verbose option to the top level btrfs command,
such as 'btrfs --verbose'. With this we don't have to add or remember
verbose option at the sub-commands level.
As ther
On 2019-10-21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 05:38:31AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > On 2019-10-21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > > From: Omar Sandoval
> > > >
> > > > Btrfs supports transparent compression
On 2019/10/21 下午11:44, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 08:04:51AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> That's wonderful.
>> Although I guess my patchset should provide the hint of where to modify
>> the code, since there are only a limited number of places we modify
>> block group item.
>
>
On 10/21/19 9:43 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:29:34AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
I was thinking there might be some common code between the
sub-commands in btrfs-progs now or in future, and if the printf()
due to verbose is required in one sub-command and the same
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:27:54PM +0200, Edmund Urbani wrote:
> On 10/16/19 9:42 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> >
> > For raid5 I'd choose btrfs -draid5 -mraid1 over mdadm raid5
> > sometimes--even with the write hole, I'd expect smaller average data
> > losses than mdadm raid5 + write hole mitigation
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:28:06AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Btrfs supports transparent compression: data written by the user can be
> > compressed when written to disk and decompressed when read
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:05:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:38AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This series adds an API for reading compressed data on a filesystem
> > without decompressing it as well as support for wr
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 05:38:31AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-10-21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > From: Omar Sandoval
> > >
> > > Btrfs supports transparent compression: data written by the user can be
> > > compressed
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:18:13AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> CC: Ted
>
> What ever happened to read/write ext4 encrypted data API?
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=145030599010416&w=2
>
> Can we learn anything from the ext4 experience to improve
> the new proposed API?
I wasn't aware of
On 2019-10-21, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Btrfs supports transparent compression: data written by the user can be
> > compressed when written to disk and decompressed when read back.
> > However, we'd li
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> Btrfs supports transparent compression: data written by the user can be
> compressed when written to disk and decompressed when read back.
> However, we'd like to add an interface to write pre-compressed data
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:14:52PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 03:55:13PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > > + nr_pages = (disk_num_bytes + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > >
> > > nit: nr_pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(disk_num_bytes, PAGE_SIZE)
> >
> > disk_num_bytes is a
Add definition, crypto wrappers and support to mkfs for blake2 for
checksumming. There are 2 aliases either blake2 or blake2b.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
cmds/inspect-dump-super.c | 1 +
crypto/hash.c | 12
crypto/hash.h | 1 +
ctree.c
Upstream commit 997fa5ba1e14b52c554fb03ce39e579e6f27b90c,
git repository: git://github.com/BLAKE2/BLAKE2
The reference implemetation added in this patch is unchanged and will be
modified only to compile in current code base and with minimal other
modifications in case of future sync with upstream
The work to add more checksums is nearly finished, we're now in a good state to
let interested users do some testing and benchmarking.
New hashes: xxhash64, sha256, blake2b-256
Quick start:
git://github.com/kdave/btrfs-devel preview/checksums-5
(build with CRYPTO_BLAKE2B=m)
git://github.c
Add blake2b (with 256 bit digest) to the list of possible checksumming
algorithms used by BTRFS.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c| 2 ++
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 1 +
fs/btrfs/super.c| 1 +
include/uapi/linux/btrfs_tree.h | 1 +
4 files ch
Currently all the checksum algorithms generate a fixed size digest size
and we use it. The on-disk format can hold up to BTRFS_CSUM_SIZE bytes
and BLAKE2b produces digest of 512 bits by default. We can't do that and
will use the blake2b-256, this needs to be passed to the crypto API.
Separate tha
The two patches apply on top of Johaness' series adding SHA256. To
make it actually work the patch adding BLAKE2 to kernel is needed. You
can find it here (v5) https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11188109/ .
WARNING: This is for testing only!
All in one can be pulled from
git://github.com/kdave
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:01:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> This patch set brings --verbose option to the top level btrfs command,
> such as 'btrfs --verbose'. With this we don't have to add or remember
> verbose option at the sub-commands level.
>
> As there are already verbose options to 11 su
Op 20-10-2019 om 16:24 schreef Ferry Toth:
Op 20-10-2019 om 16:11 schreef Qu Wenruo:
On 2019/10/20 下午9:29, Ferry Toth wrote:
Op 20-10-2019 om 15:15 schreef Qu WenRuo:
On 2019/10/20 下午9:04, Ferry Toth wrote:
Op 20-10-2019 om 02:51 schreef Qu Wenruo:
On 2019/10/20 上午8:26, Qu Wenruo wr
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 08:13:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patchset includes the following features:
>
> - Small fixes to improve btrfs-image error report
> * Output error message for chunk tree build error
> * Fix error output to show correct return value
> Patch 1 and 2.
>
> - Redu
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 08:04:51AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> That's wonderful.
> Although I guess my patchset should provide the hint of where to modify
> the code, since there are only a limited number of places we modify
> block group item.
I indeed started at your patchset and grepped fro BG_TR
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:30:37 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > How do you read it in English?
>
> How about mathematics interval?
>
> i in [1, 4].
>
> It looks way easier and simpler no matter what language you speak.
But C doesn't accept that syntax ;-)
-- Steve
On 10/16/19 9:42 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>
> For raid5 I'd choose btrfs -draid5 -mraid1 over mdadm raid5
> sometimes--even with the write hole, I'd expect smaller average data
> losses than mdadm raid5 + write hole mitigation due to the way disk
> failure modes are distributed.
What about the wr
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:41:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patchset can be fetched from github:
> https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs/tree/bg_tree
> Which is based on v5.2.2 tag.
>
> This patchset provides the needed user space infrastructure for BG_TREE
> feature.
>
> Since it's an
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 01:16:03PM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> The manual page of btrfsck clearly states 'btrfs check --repair' is a
> dangerous operation.
>
> Although this warning is in place users do not read the manual page and/or
> are used to the behaviour of fsck utilities which repa
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:07:16AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/10/11 上午12:17, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:59:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> This patchset can be fetched from github:
> >> https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs/tree/for_next
> >> Which is base
On 21/10/2019 11:17, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
[...]
>> -
>> $ cat run-btrfs-test
>> modprobe -iv zram num_devices=8
>> udevadm trigger
>> sync
>> zramctl /dev/zram0 -s 8G && \
>> zramctl /dev/zram1 -s 8G && \
>> zramctl /dev/zram2 -s 4G && \
>> zramctl /dev/zram3 -s 4G && \
>> zramctl /dev/zra
On 2019/10/21 下午10:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:03:21 +0800
> Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>> On 2019/10/21 下午9:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:47:30 +0800
>>> Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
+static void print_uuid_arg(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, int size,
>
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:03:21 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2019/10/21 下午9:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:47:30 +0800
> > Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >
> >> +static void print_uuid_arg(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, int size,
> >> + struct tep_event *event, str
On 2019/10/21 下午9:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:47:30 +0800
> Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>> +static void print_uuid_arg(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, int size,
>> + struct tep_event *event, struct tep_print_arg *arg)
>> +{
>> +unsigned char *buf;
>> +
On 2019-10-21 09:02, Christian Pernegger wrote:
[Please CC me, I'm not on the list.]
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn
:
I've [worked with fs clones] like this dozens of times on single-device volumes
with exactly zero issues.
Thank you, I have taken precautions
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:47:30 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> +static void print_uuid_arg(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, int size,
> +struct tep_event *event, struct tep_print_arg *arg)
> +{
> + unsigned char *buf;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (arg->type != TEP_PRINT_FIELD)
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:29:34AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> I was thinking there might be some common code between the
> sub-commands in btrfs-progs now or in future, and if the printf()
> due to verbose is required in one sub-command and the same printf()
> due to verbose is not required
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:58:19AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Here are some minor coding style cleanups which I think are neat as they make
> some functions a bit easier to read.
>
> None of these patches is really needed though.
>
> The patches have no regressions with regrads to the bas
On 2019/10/21 下午9:02, Christian Pernegger wrote:
> [Please CC me, I'm not on the list.]
>
> Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn
> :
>> I've [worked with fs clones] like this dozens of times on single-device
>> volumes with exactly zero issues.
>
> Thank you, I have
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:58:20AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> - /* can we steal this cached rbio's pages? */
> + /* can we steal this cached rbio's pages? */
> + /* no merging, put us on the tail of the plug list, our rbio
> + * wil
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 03:09:58PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 18.10.19 г. 15:06 ч., YueHaibing wrote:
> > Fix sparse warning:
> >
> > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:2534:12: warning:
> > symbol 'init_tree_roots' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Reported-by: Hulk Robot
> > Signed
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 03:55:13PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > + nr_pages = (disk_num_bytes + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> > nit: nr_pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(disk_num_bytes, PAGE_SIZE)
>
> disk_num_bytes is a u64, so that would expand to a 64-bit division. The
> compiler is probably smar
Do you receive the mail i send to you?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 12:58:12PM +0200, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
> I'm running Debian Testing with kernel 5.2.17-1. Five disk raid1 with
> at least 393.01GiB unallocated on each disk. No device errors. No
> kernel WARNINGs or ERRORs.
>
> BTRFS info (device dm-1): enabling auto defrag
> BTRFS info
[Please CC me, I'm not on the list.]
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn
:
> I've [worked with fs clones] like this dozens of times on single-device
> volumes with exactly zero issues.
Thank you, I have taken precautions, but it does seem to work fine.
> There are ac
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:30:50 +0200
David Sterba wrote:
...
> I've merged the patch as-is, thank. The 'ditto' spelling is probably
> more widely used in english texts. 'dtto' is in sources and thus not
> visible to wide audience so we can live with that.
Thank you!
--
Merlin Büge
On 18.10.19 г. 12:58 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> In lock_stripe_add() we're traversing the stripe hash list and check if
> the current list element's raid_map equals is equal to the raid bio's
> raid_map. If both are equal we continue processing.
>
> If we'd check for inequality instead of
On 21/10/2019 14:32, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 21.10.19 г. 11:06 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> On 18/10/2019 14:02, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Patches 2-4 LGTM you can add, :
>>
>> What's wrong with 1/4?
>
> Nothing per-se but it looked ugly and my brain refused to make sens
On 21.10.19 г. 11:06 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 18/10/2019 14:02, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Patches 2-4 LGTM you can add, :
>
> What's wrong with 1/4?
Nothing per-se but it looked ugly and my brain refused to make sense of
it so I haven't really reviewed it :) .
>
>
>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 06:23:31PM +0200, Merlin Büge wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:14:33 +0200
> Merlin Büge wrote:
> ...
> > diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs-man5.asciidoc
> > b/Documentation/btrfs-man5.asciidoc
> > index 6a1a04b7..ee6010fe 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/btrfs-man5.asci
Hi,
btrfs-progs version 5.3 have been released.
There are some changes that fit the major release time, like changing default
tree traversal for dump-tree, new CI integration and documentation generation.
There's preparatory work for the checksums that will be in 5.5 and we decided
to release ker
On 2019-10-21 06:47, Christian Pernegger wrote:
[Please CC me, I'm not on the list.]
Am So., 20. Okt. 2019 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Qu Wenruo :
Question: Can I work with the mounted backup image on the machine that
also contains the original disc? I vaguely recall something about
btrfs really not l
I'm running Debian Testing with kernel 5.2.17-1. Five disk raid1 with
at least 393.01GiB unallocated on each disk. No device errors. No
kernel WARNINGs or ERRORs.
BTRFS info (device dm-1): enabling auto defrag
BTRFS info (device dm-1): using free space tree
BTRFS info (device dm-1): has skinny ext
On 2019/10/21 下午6:47, Christian Pernegger wrote:
> [Please CC me, I'm not on the list.]
>
> Am So., 20. Okt. 2019 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Qu Wenruo :
>>> Question: Can I work with the mounted backup image on the machine that
>>> also contains the original disc? I vaguely recall something about
>>>
[Please CC me, I'm not on the list.]
Am So., 20. Okt. 2019 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Qu Wenruo :
> > Question: Can I work with the mounted backup image on the machine that
> > also contains the original disc? I vaguely recall something about
> > btrfs really not liking clones.
>
> If your fs only conta
Command btrfs inspect-internal inode-resolve provides verbose option at
the sub-command level, this patch makes it enable-able by using the
global --verbose option.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/inspect.c | 15 ---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 d
Function btrfs_scan_devices() is being used by commands such as
'btrfs filesystem' and 'btrfs device', by having the verbose argument in
the btrfs_scan_devices() we can control which threads to show the
verbose when verbose is enabled by the global verbose option.
So add an option %verbose to btrf
Command btrfs inspect-internal logical-resolve provides local verbose
option this patch makes it enable-able by using the global --verbose
option.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/inspect.c | 25 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletio
Enable verbose output for the device scan only through the global
verbose option.
For example:
./btrfs --verbose device scan
Scanning for Btrfs filesystems
registered: /dev/sda1
registered: /dev/sda2
registered: /dev/sda3
registered: /dev/sda5
registered: /dev/sda6
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
The idea is to use the global --verbose command option to show
verbose output from the sub-commands. This patch adds a global
bool variable, %global_verbose, to transpire the verbose requisites
to the sub-command level. And provides pr_verbose() helper
function to log the verbose messages.
Suggest
Make sure the sub command balance start calls verbose when the global
verbose is set and vise versa.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/balance.c | 22 +++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds/balance.c b/cmds/balance
Make sure top level verbose option can enable the blalance status
subcommand's verbose option.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/balance.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds/balance.c b/cmds/balance.c
index 7e84efd6a80d..d
btrfs balance start|status support both short and long option
-v|--verbose however failed to show it in its --help. This patch fixes
the --help.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/balance.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds/balance.c b/cmds/balance.c
in
This patch set brings --verbose option to the top level btrfs command,
such as 'btrfs --verbose'. With this we don't have to add or remember
verbose option at the sub-commands level.
As there are already verbose options to 11 sub-commands as listed
below [1][2]. So the top level --verbose option h
btrfs subvolume delete already supports verbose at the sub-command
level, this patch restores same verbose which can be either enabled
by the sub-command or from the top level command.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/subvolume.c | 35 +--
Command btrfs restore provides local verbose option, this patch makes it
enable-able by using the global --verbose option as well.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/restore.c | 69 ++
1 file changed, 31 insertio
Now with this patch the btrfs rescue chunk-recover can display verbose
output either at the sub-command level or at the top level. For example
'btrfs --verbose rescue chunk-recover <>' or 'btrfs rescue chunk-recover
-v <>'.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/rescue.c
btrfs filesystem deframent already supports local sub-command
verbose option, enable the same when the global verbose option is set.
And as well make sure the same remains enabled at the local level.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/filesystem.c | 25 +++
Now with this patch 'btrfs rescue super-recover' can show verbose output
either by the top level --verbose option or by the sub-command -v
option.
Suggested-by: David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/rescue.c | 9 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/
Maximum value of %verbose is 1 when %verbose is enabled using
'btrfs restore -v ', and the code under the condition
%verbose > 1 is never reached. So delete them.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds/restore.c | 17 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:05 AM Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>
> We are checking PagePrivate twice, once with lock and once without.
> Perform the check only once.
Have you checked if there's some performance degradation after
removing the check?
My guess is it's there t
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn
--
Johannes ThumshirnSUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumsh...@suse.de+49 911 74053 689
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5
90409 Nürnberg
Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführe
[BUG]
For btrfs related events, there is a field for fsid, but perf never
parse it correctly.
# perf trace -e btrfs:qgroup_meta_convert xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 4k" \
/mnt/btrfs/file1
0.000 xfs_io/77915 btrfs:qgroup_meta_reserve:(nil)U: refroot=5(FS_TREE)
type=0x0 diff=2
Add an optional argument, for -b|--backup.
This optional argument allow user to specify the generation difference
to search for the best backup root.
The value values are: -3, -2, -1.
To co-operate with this change, the following modifications are made:
- Man page and help string update
- New
Current backup root handling has extra check on super generation:
static int find_best_backup_root(struct btrfs_super_block *super)
{
u64 orig_gen = btrfs_super_generation(super);
...
if (btrfs_backup_tree_root_gen(backup) != orig_gen &&
btrfs_backup_tre
Before this patchset, if we want to use backup roots, it's only possible
to let btrfs-check to automatically choose the backup.
If user want to use a specified backup, it can only use -r|--tree-root
option along with backup roots dump from "btrfs ins dump-super".
This patchset will introduce opti
This saves several lines of code.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
utils-lib.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/utils-lib.c b/utils-lib.c
index c2b6097f5df9..0202dd7677f0 100644
--- a/utils-lib.c
+++ b/utils-lib.c
@@ -23,8 +23,7 @@ u64 arg_strtou64(const ch
On 19/10/2019 21:29, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the report.
> While trying to reproduce another problem I have seen with BTRFS while
> running balance and raid6 I hit an issue resulting in:
> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 02ce
>
> I created a scri
On 18/10/2019 14:02, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
[...]
> Patches 2-4 LGTM you can add, :
What's wrong with 1/4?
--
Johannes ThumshirnSUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumsh...@suse.de+49 911 74053 689
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr
82 matches
Mail list logo
