I don't think the patch is necessary for now.
But as I said, the fact (nr == 0 or 1) would be changed if the
subpagesize blocksize is supported.
Thanks,
-liubo
Sincerely,
-takafumi
Thanks,
-liubo
Sincerely,
On 2017/01/31 5:09, Liu Bo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 03:12:31PM +0900
count=10 2> /dev/null"
sync # never return
done
umount ${directory}
--
Sincerely,
-takafumi
On 2017/02/06 12:35, Liu Bo wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:42:17PM +0900, takafumi-sslab wrote:
(But it could be changed after subpagesize block patchset, and there is
m
u Bo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 03:12:31PM +0900, takafumi-sslab wrote:
Thanks for your replying.
I understand this bug is more complicated than I expected.
I classify error cases under submit_extent_page() below
A: ENOMEM error at btrfs_bio_alloc() in submit_extent_page()
I first assumed thi
at 03:12:31PM +0900, takafumi-sslab wrote:
Thanks for your replying.
I understand this bug is more complicated than I expected.
I classify error cases under submit_extent_page() below
A: ENOMEM error at btrfs_bio_alloc() in submit_extent_page()
I first assumed this case and sent the mail.
When
:09, Liu Bo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 03:12:31PM +0900, takafumi-sslab wrote:
Thanks for your replying.
I understand this bug is more complicated than I expected.
I classify error cases under submit_extent_page() below
A: ENOMEM error at btrfs_bio_alloc() in submit_extent_page()
I first assu
Thanks for your replying.
I understand this bug is more complicated than I expected.
I classify error cases under submit_extent_page() below
A: ENOMEM error at btrfs_bio_alloc() in submit_extent_page()
I first assumed this case and sent the mail.
When bio_ret is NULL, submit_extent_page() calls
