On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:30:21PM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh
> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
Applied to for-next with the following fixup to make it bisectable:
---
btrfs: build
On 05/12/2016 04:30 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 05/11/2016 12:53 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:59:52AM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:57 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
Hi Josef,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu
On 05/11/2016 12:53 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:59:52AM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:57 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
Hi Josef,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Current btrfs qgroup design
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:59:52AM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 09:57 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> >Hi Josef,
> >
> >On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>>Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after
On 05/11/2016 09:57 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
Hi Josef,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
Hi Josef,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
> >btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
> >
> >Normally this is OK, as
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/26 10:26 -0400:
On 04/25/2016 08:35 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/25 10:24 -0400:
On 04/24/2016 08:56 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/22 14:23 -0400:
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at
On 04/25/2016 08:35 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/25 10:24 -0400:
On 04/24/2016 08:56 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/22 14:23 -0400:
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/25 10:24 -0400:
On 04/24/2016 08:56 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/22 14:23 -0400:
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+/*
+
On 04/24/2016 08:56 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/22 14:23 -0400:
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+/*
+ * Force parent root to be updated, as we
Josef Bacik wrote on 2016/04/22 14:23 -0400:
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+/*
+ * Force parent root to be updated, as we recorded it before so
its
+ * last_trans
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:23:59PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>>+ /*
> >>>+ * Force parent root to be updated, as we recorded it before so
On 04/22/2016 02:21 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+ /*
+* Force parent root to be updated, as we recorded it before so its
+* last_trans == cur_transid.
+* Or it won't
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:12:11PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >+/*
> >+ * Force parent root to be updated, as we recorded it before so its
> >+ * last_trans == cur_transid.
> >+ * Or it won't be committed again onto disk after later
> >+
On 04/15/2016 05:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
Normally this is OK, as btrfs_qgroup_accounting_extents() is only called
inside btrfs_commit_transaction() just be
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:19:46 -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:08:22PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
>> btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
>>
>> Normally this is OK, as
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:08:22PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
> btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
>
> Normally this is OK, as btrfs_qgroup_accounting_extents() is only called
> inside
Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.
Normally this is OK, as btrfs_qgroup_accounting_extents() is only called
inside btrfs_commit_transaction() just be commit_cowonly_roots().
However there is a
18 matches
Mail list logo