On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 06:51:30PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:10:38PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > I told him to do this, these flags aren't exposed anywhere are they?
> > They are in-kernel specific stuff, please tell me we aren't exposing
> > these via sysfs?
>
>
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:10:38PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> I told him to do this, these flags aren't exposed anywhere are they?
> They are in-kernel specific stuff, please tell me we aren't exposing
> these via sysfs?
No worries, they're completely internal, just that shifting the number
I told him to do this, these flags aren't exposed anywhere are they?
They are in-kernel specific stuff, please tell me we aren't exposing
these via sysfs?
Josef
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:06 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:56:10AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:56:10AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> --- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> @@ -23,13 +23,12 @@
> #define BTRFS_INODE_ORPHAN_META_RESERVED 1
> #define BTRFS_INODE_DUMMY2
> #define BTRFS_INODE_IN_DEFRAG
On 11.05.2018 10:56, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> Now that we don't add orphan items for truncate, there can't be races on
> adding or deleting an orphan item, so this bit is unnecessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
> ---
>
From: Omar Sandoval
Now that we don't add orphan items for truncate, there can't be races on
adding or deleting an orphan item, so this bit is unnecessary.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h | 13
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 76