On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:22:58PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> hi Eryu,
>
> There has already be a generic/102 doing this test...
> Thanks for you kindly review and sorry for wasting your time.
I had impression yesterday that we have a case that does exactly the
same test, and I searched but d
hi,
On 11/02/2016 09:27 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
may be that btrfs does not try
hi Eryu,
There has already be a generic/102 doing this test...
Thanks for you kindly review and sorry for wasting your time.
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
On 11/01/2016 08:26 PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
In btrfs, sometimes though the number o
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
> are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
> may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
> are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
> may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
patch to resolve this kind of enospc error. Note, this false enospc er
