On 05/28/2012 02:06 PM, WeiFeng Liu wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for working on this.
>>
>> Do you have any performance number?
>>
>> The idea is an interesting one, but I have no idea if it really
>> works, because blocks are
>> still fragmen
On 05/28/12 10:41, Liu Bo wrote:
On 05/28/2012 02:06 PM, WeiFeng Liu wrote:
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for working on this.
Do you have any performance number?
The idea is an interesting one, but I have no idea if it really
works, because blocks are
still
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:10:21AM +0800, Asias He wrote:
> 1) This function is not used anywhere.
This was added in 49b25e0540904be0bf558b84475c69d72e4de66e adding a
transaction abort infrastructure. I'm not sure if Jeff had some
intentions with it or whether it got obsolete during the patchset
Is there any way to mark existing snapshots as read-only? Making new
ones read-only is easy enough, but what about existing ones?
Thanks.
--
Bruce Guenter http://untroubled.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Jan,
>> Let's say that slot[0] of the current leaf (A) has key=10. And let's
>> say that its parent node (N) has key=5 (and not 10). Let's say we have
>> a previous leaf (B), whose last slot has key=2.
>> If such tree is valid, then: btrfs_prev_leaf() will search for key==9.
>> Then btrfs_searc
On 2012/5/29 2:37, Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
> Is there any way to mark existing snapshots as read-only? Making new
> ones read-only is easy enough, but what about existing ones?
>
We have code in the kernel side, so what we need to do is to update btrfs-progs,
which is trivial.
--
To unsubscribe
