On 22 October 2014 04:08, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Since the kernel has code for both "fat" metadata and skinny-metadata,
> they can exist side-by-side and the kernel will use whichever code is
> appropriate.
I understand that the fat extent code will probably never be removed
for c
On 21 September 2014 03:01, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>
> Inspect arguments, if we are not called as btrfs, then assume we are
> called to act like fsck.
[...]
> - if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) {
> + if (strcmp(bname, "btrfs") != 0) {
That's assuming a lot.
Silently (!) breaking pe
On 3 July 2014 10:33, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Oh, sorry for my confusing words.
And I probably should have waited for my frustration with my mail
client/device/public transport to subside before panicking^Creplying.
I use a combination of ro & rw (not insanely nested) subvolumes on a
few pseudo-embed
[List CCd. I hate Gmail.]
Noob alert.
On 3 July 2014 02:28, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert "btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes w=
ith
> different ro/rw options"
> From: Goffredo Baroncelli
> To: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Date: 2014=E5=B9=B407=E6=9C=8803=E
