On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:08:32AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo
Applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http
At 12/23/2016 08:47 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 12/20/2016 06:57 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 12/20/2016 08:08 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
root->highest_inode is not accurate at the time of creating a lost+found
and it fails because the highest_inode+1 is already
On 12/20/2016 06:57 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 12/20/2016 08:08 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>>
>> root->highest_inode is not accurate at the time of creating a lost+found
>> and it fails because the highest_inode+1 is already present. This
>> could be
>> because
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:08:54AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>
> root->highest_inode is not accurate at the time of creating a lost+found
> and it fails because the highest_inode+1 is already present. This could be
> because of fixes after highest_inode is set. Ins
At 12/20/2016 08:08 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
root->highest_inode is not accurate at the time of creating a lost+found
and it fails because the highest_inode+1 is already present. This could be
because of fixes after highest_inode is set. Instead, search
for the hig
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
root->highest_inode is not accurate at the time of creating a lost+found
and it fails because the highest_inode+1 is already present. This could be
because of fixes after highest_inode is set. Instead, search
for the highest inode in the tree and use it for lost+found.
Th
