From: Wang Shilong
Now we have kicked off transaction from btrfs send, it is not safe
that we use extent commit root to search.
I happended to catch this problem when running sending and snapshot
in my desktop.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertio
From: Wang Shilong
There is a bug that using btrfs_previous_item() to search metadata extent item.
This is because in btrfs_previous_item(), we need type match, however, since
skinny metada was introduced by josef, we may mix this two types. So just
use btrfs_previous_item() is not working right.
From: Wang Shilong
If @slot=0, we may have an expected item in the previous leaf,
So we should handle that case, otherwise, we will miss inline refs
,fix it.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
fs/btrfs/backref.c | 13 ++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/
From: Wang Shilong
Check if we support skinny metadata firstly and fix to use
right type to search.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index 7806e2c..e0677e4 100644
--- a/f
HI,
I am trying to convert my array from raid10 to 1, and its partially completed,
but at the moment i am getting a '59366.459092] btrfs: 185 enospc errors during
balance’ when i try to balance anything more with `btrfs bal start
-dconvert=raid1,soft /mountpoint`
I have already scanned for fil
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong
>
> If @slot=0, we may have an expected item in the previous leaf,
> So we should handle that case, otherwise, we will miss inline refs
> ,fix it.
Hi Shilong.
How can this happen exactly?
So the search key, regardless of
Hi,
I'm not sure whether it's a bug in btrfs or my distro but I discovered
an odd behavior today.
My Setup:
* Btrfs v3.12+20131125
* /dev/sda – Boot OS - opensuse 13.1
* Btrfs RAID 1 on /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1
I added an extra HDD with an other OS and Data on it witch accidentally
became /d
Hello,
I'm experiencing an interesting issue with the BTRFS filesystem on my
SSD drive. It first occured some time after the upgrade to kernel
3.13-rc (-rc3 was my first 3.13-rc) but I'm not sure if it is related.
The obvious symptoms are that services on my system started crashing
with "no space
On Jan 12, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Ingo Ebel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure whether it's a bug in btrfs or my distro but I discovered an odd
> behavior today.
>
> My Setup:
>
> * Btrfs v3.12+20131125
> * /dev/sda – Boot OS - opensuse 13.1
> * Btrfs RAID 1 on /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1
>
> I added an
Hi,
I don't understand the exact sequence. How does a 3rd drive appear as
sdc when
the 2nd drive is sdc and sdc1 is part of a Btrfs file system already?
Did you
reboot and the 3rd drive became sdc? This needs to be explained
better,
including the exact commands you used.
Ok i try to.
I mad
I currently have a disk with a btrfs volume dedicated to backups. All
of these backups are snapshotted volumes that were sent to this disk via
btrfs send/receive). Moreover the disk has had deduplication processes
run on it a time or two.
I wish to re-format this disk using a larger metadata blo
On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Ingo Ebel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I don't understand the exact sequence. How does a 3rd drive appear as sdc
>> when
>> the 2nd drive is sdc and sdc1 is part of a Btrfs file system already? Did you
>> reboot and the 3rd drive became sdc? This needs to be explained better,
Hello,
Kernel version?
3.12.0-031200-generic
It mounts OK with no kernel messages?
Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes:
dmesg:
[105152.392900] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f
devid 1
transid 164942 /dev/sdb1
[105152.394332] btrfs: device
Just had this on a btrfs filesystem running 3.13-rc7.
The filesystem was working fine till now and was passing balance and
scrub properly without any issues a couple of days ago:
[273059.042280] [ cut here ]
[273059.042369] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 20754 at fs/btrfs/inode.c:47
I did some more digging, and I think I have two maybe unrelated issues here.
The "no space left on device" could be caused by the amount of metadata
used. I defragmented the KVM image and other parts, ran a "balance start
-dusage=5", and now it looks like
└» btrfs fi df /
Data, single: total=113.
On fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:15:37 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Test remount btrfs with different pairing options like barrier and no barrier.
It seems that while this tests that the remount succeeds, and that
the option string is present in /proc/mounts, it does n
Hi Tomasz,
Similar bug has been reported by Pedro Fonseca
before, how do you trigger this or what operations are you doing?
Thanks,
Gui
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 23:47 +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Just had this on a btrfs filesystem running 3.13-rc7.
>
> The filesystem was working fine till n
Hi Filipe,
On 01/12/2014 11:36 PM, Filipe David Manana wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong
If @slot=0, we may have an expected item in the previous leaf,
So we should handle that case, otherwise, we will miss inline refs
,fix it.
Hi Shilong.
How c
On 1/12/14, 7:21 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:15:37 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Test remount btrfs with different pairing options like barrier and no
>>> barrier.
>> It seems that while this tests that the remount succeeds, and that
>> t
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:35:44PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/12/14, 7:21 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > On fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:15:37 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>> Test remount btrfs with different pairing options like barrier and no
> >>> barrier.
>
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:35:44 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/12/14, 7:21 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:15:37 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Test remount btrfs with different pairing options like barrier and no barrier.
It seems that while this t
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:20:12PM +, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 16:17 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On 01/07/2014 03:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:10:15PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > >>> Hey Gents,
> > >>
On mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:52:39 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:35:44PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/12/14, 7:21 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:15:37 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Test remount btrfs with different pairing o
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:25:46PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Here we are not going to free memory, no need to remove every node
> one by one, just init root node here is ok.
Looks fine, but we need to make sure that it passes the regression test since
you're
working on an old bug.
-liubo
>
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:26:05AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:52:39 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:35:44PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>I won't say no to this, but it seems to be of somewhat limited use.
> >What happens to the test when mount option
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:26:50 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:26:05AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:52:39 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:35:44PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I won't say no to this, but it seems to be of somewhat limite
On 1/12/14, 10:00 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Now I'm interested in how other filesystems like xfs makes sure that every
> pairing
> mount options are tested.
For starters, xfs actually doesn't handle very many options during remount.
Many of them are quite tricky to do, which made me wonder if they
Since remount will pending the new mount options to the original mount
options, which will make btrfs_parse_options check the old options then
new options, causing some stupid output like "enabling XXX" following by
"disable XXX".
This patch will add extra check before every btrfs_info to skip the
Add noinode_cache mount option for btrfs.
Since inode map cache involves all the btrfs_find_free_ino/return_ino
things and if just trigger the mount_opt,
an inode number get from inode map cache will not returned to inode map
cache.
To keep the find and return inode both in the same behavior,
a n
On 01/13/2014 06:47 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Hello Tomasz,
Chris recently sent a patch that addressed a race condition with
loading inode, i think it might be related to your first dmesg warning.
Chris' patch url can be seen:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg3033
On 01/12/2014 10:49 PM, Remco Hosman - Yerf IT wrote:
HI,
I am trying to convert my array from raid10 to 1, and its partially completed,
but at the moment i am getting a '59366.459092] btrfs: 185 enospc errors during
balance’ when i try to balance anything more with `btrfs bal start
-dconvert
Thomas Kuther posted on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:05:25 +0100 as excerpted:
>
[ Rearranged to standard quote/reply order so replies are in context.
Top-posting is irritating to try to reply to.]
> Am 12.01.2014 21:24, schrieb Thomas Kuther:
>>
>> I'm experiencing an interesting issue with the BTRFS
32 matches
Mail list logo
