On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:45:21 +0100 (CET), Jesper Juhl j...@chaosbits.net wrote:
It seems to me that we leak the memory allocated to 'value' in
btrfs_get_acl() if the call to posix_acl_from_xattr() fails.
Here's a patch that attempts to correct that problem.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl
Hi Chris,
This is the -V2 version of the patch. I have cleaned up the
patches and added -c option to print_inode to print the
chunk mapping details. I guess they are ready to be merged
Patches can also be found at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/kvaneesh/debug-btrfs/
-aneesh
--
Hi Chris,
I see that you merged an older version of this patch. But i guess it
still have some issues.
-anesh
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:02:45 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Even though we allocate more, we should be updating inode i_size
as per the arguments
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:28:12 -0600, Neil Schemenauer n...@arctrix.com wrote:
Hi,
It looks like Btrfs does not follow Unix traditions for st_nlink
attribute of directories. It seems to be always one, no matter the
number of sub-directories.
Is this intentional? I couldn't find it discussed
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:18:26 +, Paul Komkoff i...@stingr.net wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Paul Komkoff i...@stingr.net wrote:
If it's fixed in latest tree it's fine, I guess that fix isn't in
fedora's 2.6.32.3
Sorry for popping up again, but did anyone fix this/verified
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:27:38 -0800, Roland Dreier rdre...@cisco.com wrote:
if you run it on ext4, it will create a 4-byte file with test in it.
On btrfs, however, the file size would be 4096, and the remaining
space will be filled with zeroes.
My fallocate man page says:
