[PATCH 1/4] update hole handling

Hello, This patch splits the hole insertion code out of btrfs_setattr into btrfs_cont_expand and updates btrfs_get_extent to properly handle the case that file extent items are not continuous. Regards Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -urp 1/fs/btrfs/ctree.h 2/fs/btrfs/ctree

[PATCH 2/4] Fix booked extent race

Hello, When dropping middle part of an extent, btrfs_drop_extents truncates the extent at first, then inserts a booked extent. Since truncation and insertion can't be done atomically, there is a small period that the booked extent isn't in the tree. This causes problem for functions that search th

[PATCH 3/4] update nodatacow code

Hello, This patch simplifies the nodatacow checker. If all references were created after the latest snapshot, then we can avoid COW safely. This patch also updates run_delalloc_nocow to do more fine-grained checking. Regards Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -urp 3/fs/btrfs/

[PATCH 4/4] Add fallocate support

Hello, This patch adds fallocate support. Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -urp 4/fs/btrfs/ctree.h 5/fs/btrfs/ctree.h --- 4/fs/btrfs/ctree.h 2008-10-27 16:34:27.0 +0800 +++ 5/fs/btrfs/ctree.h 2008-10-27 21:51:20.0 +0800 @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ struct btrfs_root

[PATCH] Progs: Add fallocate support

Hello, This patch updates btrfs-progs for fallocate support. Regards Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -urp btrfs-progs-1/btrfsck.c btrfs-progs-2/btrfsck.c --- btrfs-progs-1/btrfsck.c 2008-10-27 13:15:31.0 +0800 +++ btrfs-progs-2/btrfsck.c 2008-10-27 11:08:5

Compressed Filesystem

I have read on the mailing list that there has been some interest in implementing transparent compression on btrfs and I too am thinking about trying to implement it. Before I start from scratch I am wondering if anyone else has started to work on this and if so how far along have they gotten? I wo

Re: Some very basic questions

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:35:55 +0200 "dbz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > concerning this discussion, I'd like to put up some "requests" which > strongly oppose to those brought up initially: > > - if you run into an error in the fs structure or any IO error that prevents > you from bringing the fs

Re[2]: Some very basic questions

>> In my opinon, the whole thing comes up from the idea of using cheap hardware >> and out-of-the-box configurations to keep promises of reliability and >> availability which are not realistic. There is a reason why there are more >> expensive HDDs, RAIDs, SANs with volume mirroring, multipathing