On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 08:44:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > When we're doing writes, it'll check the preallocated extents for extra
> > refs and force COW if any exist. So writes into a preallocated region
> > can enospc.
>
> This really seems like an btrfs interpretation/implementation
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:19:50AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:25:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:49:19AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > Yes, that would be my preference. I'd also like to understand what
> > > > exactly btrfs does
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:49:19AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Yes, that would be my preference. I'd also like to understand what
> > exactly btrfs does in fallocate.
>
> For which part? The answer changes based on how many references there
> are to a given fallocated region.
Both cases.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:45PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > The documentation for fallocate ought to be updated to include that as part
> > of
> > guaranteeing that subsequent writes to the range won't fail due to
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:25:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:49:19AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Yes, that would be my preference. I'd also like to understand what
> > > exactly btrfs does in fallocate.
> >
> > For which part? The answer changes based on
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:29:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:41:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > One of the patches in last week's XFS reflink patchbomb adds
> > > FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE
> >
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> The documentation for fallocate ought to be updated to include that as part of
> guaranteeing that subsequent writes to the range won't fail due to ENOSPC,
> shared blocks will be unshared.
>
> Incidentally, btrfs leaves shared
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:29:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:41:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > One of the patches in last week's XFS reflink patchbomb adds
> > FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE
> > flag; at the moment it _only_ forces copy-on-write of shared blocks, and
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:41:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> One of the patches in last week's XFS reflink patchbomb adds FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE
> flag; at the moment it _only_ forces copy-on-write of shared blocks, and it
> leaves holes alone.
Yes, I've seen the implementation.
> Obviously we
On 11/10/15 15:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:53PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
>> Reject copies that don't have the COPY_FR_REFLINK flag set.
>
> I think a reflink actually is a perfectly valid copy, and I don't buy
> the duplicate arguments in earlier threads. We
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23:05AM +0100, P??draig Brady wrote:
> You're right that if the user doesn't notice, then there is no
> point exposing this. However I think the user does notice as
> there is a difference in the end state of the copy. I.E. generally
> if there is a different end state
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:34:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23:05AM +0100, P??draig Brady wrote:
> > You're right that if the user doesn't notice, then there is no
> > point exposing this. However I think the user does notice as
> > there is a difference in the
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:53PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> Reject copies that don't have the COPY_FR_REFLINK flag set.
I think a reflink actually is a perfectly valid copy, and I don't buy
the duplicate arguments in earlier threads. We really need to think
more in terms of how this
Reject copies that don't have the COPY_FR_REFLINK flag set.
Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index
14 matches
Mail list logo