On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:45:21 +0100 (CET), Jesper Juhl 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
I posted a simil
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
--
To
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"
wrote:
> Even though we allocate more, we should be updating inode i_size
> as per the arguments passed
>
> Signed-off-by: Anees
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:28:12 -0600, Neil Schemenauer 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 anywhere.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:18:26 +, Paul Komkoff wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Paul Komkoff 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 there's
> no problem in rece
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:27:38 -0800, Roland Dreier 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:
>
>Because
