On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:06:28AM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:35 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:59:19AM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> >> > But I only see the first 2 patches in maillist...
> >> > The last test case seems missing?
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:59:19AM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> > But I only see the first 2 patches in maillist...
> > The last test case seems missing?
>
> Maybe, the last patch is too large to post to the list? Even it get
> smaller, 130260 bytes seems to be a bit large.
>
> How should I
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:35 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:59:19AM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
>> > But I only see the first 2 patches in maillist...
>> > The last test case seems missing?
>>
>> Maybe, the last patch is too large to post to the list? Even it
Naohiro Aota wrote on 2015/12/07 11:59 +0900:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 12/04/2015 01:37 PM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
This series address an issue of btrfsck to restore infinite number of
same file into `lost+found' directory. The issue occur
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 12/04/2015 01:37 PM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
>>
>> This series address an issue of btrfsck to restore infinite number of
>> same file into `lost+found' directory. The issue occur on a file which
>> is linked from two
This series address an issue of btrfsck to restore infinite number of
same file into `lost+found' directory. The issue occur on a file which
is linked from two different directory A and B. If links from dir A is
corrupted and links from dir B is kept valid, btrfsck won't stop
creating a file in
On 12/04/2015 01:37 PM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
This series address an issue of btrfsck to restore infinite number of
same file into `lost+found' directory. The issue occur on a file which
is linked from two different directory A and B. If links from dir A is
corrupted and links from dir B is kept