On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net wrote:
On 23.07.2012 21:41, Alexander Block wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net wrote:
On 04.07.2012 15:38, Alexander Block wrote:
+
+ ret = btrfs_update_root(trans, root-fs_info-tree_root,
+
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net wrote:
On 04.07.2012 15:38, Alexander Block wrote:
This patch introduces uuids for subvolumes. Each
subvolume has it's own uuid. In case it was snapshotted,
it also contains parent_uuid. In case it was received,
it also contains
On 23.07.2012 21:41, Alexander Block wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net wrote:
On 04.07.2012 15:38, Alexander Block wrote:
+
+ ret = btrfs_update_root(trans, root-fs_info-tree_root,
+ root-root_key, root-root_item);
+ if
On 04.07.2012 15:38, Alexander Block wrote:
This patch introduces uuids for subvolumes. Each
subvolume has it's own uuid. In case it was snapshotted,
it also contains parent_uuid. In case it was received,
it also contains received_uuid.
It also introduces subvolume ctime/otime/stime/rtime.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Alexander Block abloc...@googlemail.com wrote:
This patch introduces uuids for subvolumes.
[...]
Stefan and Jan pointed out a problem with this patch that would result
in read_extent_buffer calls that read beyond the leaf size when an old
root item is found at the
+static long btrfs_ioctl_set_received_subvol(struct file *file,
+ void __user *arg)
+{
+ struct btrfs_ioctl_received_subvol_args *sa = NULL;
+ ret = copy_to_user(arg, sa, sizeof(*sa));
+struct btrfs_ioctl_received_subvol_args {
+
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net wrote:
+static long btrfs_ioctl_set_received_subvol(struct file *file,
+ void __user *arg)
+{
+ struct btrfs_ioctl_received_subvol_args *sa = NULL;
+ ret = copy_to_user(arg, sa,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:20:16AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On 07/05/2012 10:14 AM, Alexander Block wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Zach Brownz...@zabbo.net wrote:
Careful, timespec will be different sizes in 32bit userspace and a 64bit
kernel. I'd use btrfs_timespec to get a fixed
and take endianess into account with le{64,32}_to_cpu and
cpu_to_le{64,32} macros.
The kernel doesn't support system calls from userspace of a different
endianness, no worries there :)
- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:37:40AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
and take endianess into account with le{64,32}_to_cpu and
cpu_to_le{64,32} macros.
The kernel doesn't support system calls from userspace of a different
endianness, no worries there :)
What if you are on a big-endian machine with
On 07/05/2012 11:59 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
What if you are on a big-endian machine with a big-endian kernel and
userspace? Everything on-disk should be little-endian, so if you are
going to write stuff you got from userspace to disk, at some point you
have to make sure you are writing out
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Alexander Block wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net wrote:
On 07/05/2012 11:59 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
What if you are on a big-endian machine with a big-endian kernel and
userspace? Everything on-disk should be
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Alexander Block wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net wrote:
On 07/05/2012 11:59 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
What if you are on a big-endian machine with
This patch introduces uuids for subvolumes. Each
subvolume has it's own uuid. In case it was snapshotted,
it also contains parent_uuid. In case it was received,
it also contains received_uuid.
It also introduces subvolume ctime/otime/stime/rtime. The
first two are comparable to the times found in
14 matches
Mail list logo
