On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:59:59AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:03:43AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:11:44PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > > > That's EIO. Sometimes the EIO is big enough we have to abort, but
> > > > > really the abort is just adding
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:03:43AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:11:44PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > > That's EIO. Sometimes the EIO is big enough we have to abort, but
> > > > really the abort is just adding bonus.
> > >
> > > I think we misuse the EIO where we should r
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:11:44PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > That's EIO. Sometimes the EIO is big enough we have to abort, but
> > > really the abort is just adding bonus.
> >
> > I think we misuse the EIO where we should really return EFSCORRUPTED
> > that's an alias for EUCLEAN, looking at xf
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:01:05PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:58:12PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09/15/2016 03:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:58:12PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On 09/15/2016 03:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> >
On 09/15/2016 03:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
While upd
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > > > While updating
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > > While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling
> > > > nodes/leaves in o
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:13:34PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling
> > nodes/leaves in order to keep height as low as possible.
> > But we don't memset the original places with zero when
> > pushing ite
On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling
nodes/leaves in order to keep height as low as possible.
But we don't memset the original places with zero whe
On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling
nodes/leaves in order to keep height as low as possible.
But we don't memset the original places with zero when
pushing items so that we could end up leav
On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling
nodes/leaves in order to keep height as low as possible.
But we don't memset the original places with zero when
pushing items so that we could end up leaving stale content
in nodes/leaves. One may re
While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling
nodes/leaves in order to keep height as low as possible.
But we don't memset the original places with zero when
pushing items so that we could end up leaving stale content
in nodes/leaves. One may read the above stale content by
increasing
13 matches
Mail list logo