On 28/07/2017 00:36, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:40:17PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
Eg. files that are already compressed would increase the cpu consumption
with compress-force, while they'd be hopefully detected as
incompressible with 'compress' and clever heuristics. So th
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:40:17PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
> > Eg. files that are already compressed would increase the cpu consumption
> > with compress-force, while they'd be hopefully detected as
> > incompressible with 'compress' and clever heuristics. So the NOCOMPRESS
> > bit would better
Eg. files that are already compressed would increase the cpu consumption
with compress-force, while they'd be hopefully detected as
incompressible with 'compress' and clever heuristics. So the NOCOMPRESS
bit would better reflect the status of the file.
current NOCOMPRESS is based on trial and
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:00:27PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:37:49PM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:00:56 +0800
> > Anand Jain wrote:
> > > On 07/18/2017 02:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > This must stay 'return 1', if force-compress is on,
On 07/22/2017 05:00 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:37:49PM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:00:56 +0800
Anand Jain wrote:
On 07/18/2017 02:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
This must stay 'return 1', if force-compress is on, so the change is
reverted.
In
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:37:49PM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:00:56 +0800
> Anand Jain wrote:
> > On 07/18/2017 02:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > > This must stay 'return 1', if force-compress is on, so the change is
> > > reverted.
> >
> > Initially I thought 'return
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:00:56 +0800
Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 07/18/2017 02:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > So it basically looks good, I could not resist and rewrote the changelog
> > and comments. There's one code fix:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:52:58PM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote:
On 07/18/2017 02:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
So it basically looks good, I could not resist and rewrote the changelog
and comments. There's one code fix:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:52:58PM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote:
-static inline int inode_need_compress(struct inode *inode)
+static inline
So it basically looks good, I could not resist and rewrote the changelog
and comments. There's one code fix:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:52:58PM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote:
> -static inline int inode_need_compress(struct inode *inode)
> +static inline int inode_need_compress(struct inode *inode,
For now that code just return true
Later more complex heuristic code will be added
Signed-off-by: Timofey Titovets
---
fs/btrfs/compression.c | 30 ++
fs/btrfs/compression.h | 2 ++
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 10 +-
3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletion
10 matches
Mail list logo