On 11.04.2021 02:06, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Right. The block device (partition containing the Btrfs file system)
> must be exclusively used by one kernel, host or guest. Dom0 or DomU.
> Can't be both.
>
> The only exception I'm aware of is virtiofs or virtio-9p, but I
> haven't messed with that stu
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 8:49 AM Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:38:57 +
> Paul Leiber wrote:
>
> > d) Perhaps the complete BTRFS setup (Xen, VMs, pass through the partition,
> > Samba share) is flawed?
>
> I kept reading and reading to find where you say you unmounted in on t
Von: Roman Mamedov
Gesendet: Samstag, 10. April 2021 16:49
>
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:38:57 +
> Paul Leiber wrote:
>
> > e) Perhaps it is wrong to mount the BTRFS root first in the Dom0 and then
> accessing the subvolumes in the DomU?
>
> Absolutely O.o
>
> Subvolumes are very much like d
Keeping everything else the same, and only reverting to kernel
5.9.16-200.fc33.x86_64, this kernel message
>overlayfs: upper fs does not support xattr, falling back to index=off and
>metacopy=off
no longer appears when I 'podman system reset' or when 'podman build'
bolt, using the overlay driver
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:43 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:42 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:36 PM Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > $ sudo mount -o remount,userxattr /home
> > > mount: /home: mount point not mounted or bad option.
> > >
> > >
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:42 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:36 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > $ sudo mount -o remount,userxattr /home
> > mount: /home: mount point not mounted or bad option.
> >
> > [ 92.573364] BTRFS error (device sda6): unrecognized mount option
> > 'us
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:36 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> $ sudo mount -o remount,userxattr /home
> mount: /home: mount point not mounted or bad option.
>
> [ 92.573364] BTRFS error (device sda6): unrecognized mount option
> 'userxattr'
>
[ 63.320831] BTRFS error (device sda6): unrecognized mo
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:55 AM Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 8:36 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > I can reproduce the bolt testcase problem in a podman container, with
> > overlay driver, using ext4, xfs, and btrfs. So I think I can drop
> > linux-btrfs@ from this thread.
> >
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 8:36 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> I can reproduce the bolt testcase problem in a podman container, with
> overlay driver, using ext4, xfs, and btrfs. So I think I can drop
> linux-btrfs@ from this thread.
>
> Also I can reproduce the title of this thread simply by 'podman sys
I can reproduce the bolt testcase problem in a podman container, with
overlay driver, using ext4, xfs, and btrfs. So I think I can drop
linux-btrfs@ from this thread.
Also I can reproduce the title of this thread simply by 'podman system
reset' and see the kernel messages before doing the actual r
Hi,
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:29:17PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> > Hi, Dennis Zhou
> >
> > Thanks for your ncie answer.
> > but still a few questions.
> >
> > > Percpu is not really cheap memory to allocate because it has a
> > > amplification factor of NR_CPUS. As a result, percpu on the cr
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:29:17PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> Hi, Dennis Zhou
>
> Thanks for your ncie answer.
> but still a few questions.
>
> > Percpu is not really cheap memory to allocate because it has a
> > amplification factor of NR_CPUS. As a result, percpu on the critical
> > path is re
Hi, Dennis Zhou
Thanks for your ncie answer.
but still a few questions.
> Percpu is not really cheap memory to allocate because it has a
> amplification factor of NR_CPUS. As a result, percpu on the critical
> path is really not something that is expected to be high throughput.
> Ideally things
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:38:57 +
Paul Leiber wrote:
> d) Perhaps the complete BTRFS setup (Xen, VMs, pass through the partition,
> Samba share) is flawed?
I kept reading and reading to find where you say you unmounted in on the host,
and then... :)
> e) Perhaps it is wrong to mount the BTRFS
Hi everybody,
this is my first ever e-mail to a Linux mailing list, so please forgive me if I
am making some stupid mistake (and, please, tell me how to behave better :-).
For my new home backend (AD, shares, tv server, etc.), I recently set up a
couple of Linux (Debian Buster) VMs based on Xen
From: Naohiro Aota
Moves the location of the superblock logging zones. The new locations of
the logging zones are now determined based on fixed block addresses
instead of on fixed zone numbers.
The old placement method based on fixed zone numbers causes problems when
one needs to inspect a file
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:07:19PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 05:25:28PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> > This commit moves the location of the superblock logging zones. The new
> > locations of the logging zones are now determined based on fixed block
> > addresses instead
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:04 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The primary problem is Bolt (Thunderbolt 3) tests that are
> experiencing a regression when run in a container using overlayfs,
> failing at:
>
> Bail out! ERROR:../tests/test-common.c:1413:test_io_dir_is_empty:
> 'empty' should be FA
18 matches
Mail list logo
