Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Test that qgroup counts are valid after snapshot creation

2016-04-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:26:33AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/21 16:53 -0700: > >Thank you for the review, comments are below. > > > >On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:48:54AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > >>On 2016/04/20 7:25, Mark Fasheh wrote: > >>>+# Force a small

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Test that qgroup counts are valid after snapshot creation

2016-04-21 Thread Qu Wenruo
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/21 16:53 -0700: Thank you for the review, comments are below. On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:48:54AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: On 2016/04/20 7:25, Mark Fasheh wrote: +# Force a small leaf size to make it easier to blow out our root +# subvolume tree

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Test that qgroup counts are valid after snapshot creation

2016-04-21 Thread Mark Fasheh
Thank you for the review, comments are below. On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:48:54AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > On 2016/04/20 7:25, Mark Fasheh wrote: > >+# Force a small leaf size to make it easier to blow out our root > >+# subvolume tree > >+_scratch_mkfs "--nodesize 16384" > > nodesize

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Test that qgroup counts are valid after snapshot creation

2016-04-19 Thread Satoru Takeuchi
On 2016/04/20 7:25, Mark Fasheh wrote: This has been broken since Linux v4.1. We may have worked out a solution on the btrfs list but in the meantime sending a test to expose the issue seems like a good idea. Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh --- tests/btrfs/122 | 88

[PATCH] btrfs: Test that qgroup counts are valid after snapshot creation

2016-04-19 Thread Mark Fasheh
This has been broken since Linux v4.1. We may have worked out a solution on the btrfs list but in the meantime sending a test to expose the issue seems like a good idea. Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh --- tests/btrfs/122 | 88