On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 08:09:25AM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
> man pages for btrfs-progs are compressed by gzip by default. In Makefile
> the variable GZIP is use, this evaluates to 'gzip gzip' on my system.
> >From man gzip:
>
> > The environment variable GZIP can hold a set of default option
On 12 May 2014 15:09, David Sterba wrote:
>
> Thanks, it was reported & fixed a few days ago, though it's not in the
> integration branch, lag is on my side.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4115501/
Hi David,
I noticed this in another thread:
On 3 June 2014 10:14, David Sterba wrote:
>
On snapshot creation (either writable or read-only), we do orphan cleanup
against the root of the snapshot. If the cleanup did remove any orphans,
then the current root node will be different from the commit root node
until the next transaction commit happens.
A send operation always uses the comm
gcc 4.9.0 gives a warning: array subscript is above array bounds
Checking for "greater or equal" instead of just "equal" fixes this.
Signed-off-by: Christian Hesse
---
cmds-restore.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cmds-restore.c b/cmds-restore.c
index 96b97e
gcc 4.9.0 gives a warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’,
but argument 2 has type ‘u64’
Using %llu and casting to unsigned long long (same as bytenr) fixes this.
Signed-off-by: Christian Hesse
---
btrfs-select-super.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff
David Sterba on Tue, 2014/06/03 11:14:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 08:09:25AM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
> > man pages for btrfs-progs are compressed by gzip by default. In Makefile
> > the variable GZIP is use, this evaluates to 'gzip gzip' on my system.
> > >From man gzip:
> >
> > > The enviro
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:38:16AM +0100, WorMzy Tykashi wrote:
> I noticed this in another thread:
>
> On 3 June 2014 10:14, David Sterba wrote:
> > I've assembled a branch containing doc-only fixes, including this one,
> > and asked Chris do do a 3.14.3 release.
>
> Does this branch include th
On Saturday 31 May 2014 18:30:49 Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> By the way, what about NILFS2? Is NILFS2 ready for suggested approach
> without any changes?
nilfs2 and a lot of other file systems don't need any changes for
this, because they don't assign the inode time stamp fields to
a 'struct times
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
> Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:12:45 +0100
> From: Filipe David Borba Manana
> To: fste...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
> Filipe David Borba Manana
> Subject: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add test for btrfs cloning with file ho
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 14:06:06 +0100
> From: Filipe David Borba Manana
> To: fste...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
> Filipe David Borba Manana
> Subject: [PATCH v4] xfstests: add test for btrfs cloning with file hol
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:36:00AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> when we delete the device from the mounted btrfs,
> we would need its corresponding sysfs enty to
> be removed as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:36:01AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> we would need the device links to be created,
> when device is added.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to major
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:35:59AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> From: Anand Jain
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 14:06:06 +0100
>> From: Filipe David Borba Manana
>> To: fste...@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
>> Filipe David Borba Manana
>> Subject
Regression test for the btrfs ioctl clone operation when the source range
contains hole(s) and the FS has the NO_HOLES feature enabled (file holes
don't need file extent items in the btree to represent them).
This issue is fixed by the following linux kernel btrfs patch:
Btrfs: fix clone to d
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:36:02AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> when we replace the device its corresponding sysfs
> entry has to be replaced as well
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:47:42AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >>>+/* replace the sysfs entry */
> >>>+rm_device_membership(fs_info, src_device);
> >>>+add_device_membership(fs_info, tgt_device);
> >>>+
> >>> btrfs_rm_dev_replace_blocked(fs_info);
> >>>
> >>> btrfs_rm_dev_repla
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:36:03AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Creating sprout will change the fsid of the mounted root.
> do the same on the sysfs as well.
>
> reproducer:
> mount /dev/sdb /btrfs (seed disk)
> btrfs dev add /dev/sdc /btrfs
> mount -o rw,remount /btrfs
> btrfs dev del /dev/sdb
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:36:04AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> From: Anand Jain
>
> As of now with out this patch the sysfs interface under dir
> /sys/fs/btrfs//devices is just link to the block devs.
At this point it's part of the sysfs ABI and should not be changed.
> Moving forward we would n
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think John Stultz and Thomas Gleixner have already started looking
> at how the timekeeping code can be updated. Once that is done, we should
> be able to add a functional 64-bit gettimeofday/settimeofday syscall
> pair. While I definitely agree this is
On Tuesday 03 June 2014 14:33:10 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > I think John Stultz and Thomas Gleixner have already started looking
> > at how the timekeeping code can be updated. Once that is done, we should
> > be able to add a functional 64-bit gettimeo
On Monday 02 June 2014 14:57:26 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>
> >> The bit that is really going to hurt is every single ioctl that uses a
> >> timespec.
> >>
> >> Honestly, though, I really don't understand the point with "struct
> >> inode_time". It see
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:48:28PM +, Philip Worrall wrote:
> LZ4 is a lossless data compression algorithm that is focused on
> compression and decompression speed. LZ4 gives a slightly worse
> compression ratio compared with LZO (and much worse than Zlib)
> but compression speeds are *general
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:25:49AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> On 06/03/2014 01:27 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> >On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:59:57PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> >>If checksum root is corrupted, fsck will get segmentation. This
> >>is because if we fail to load checksum root, root's no
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:29:19PM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
> gcc 4.9.0 gives a warning: array subscript is above array bounds
>
> Checking for "greater or equal" instead of just "equal" fixes this.
That fixes the warning, but I don't see the code path that leads to
level >= BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL
Explicitly say which critical root is corrupted. It is possible to
repair or reset some of the roots with a special option.
CC: Wang Shilong
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
Patch based on the fsck branch from integration with other fsck fixes,
namely "Btrfs-progs: fsck: deal with corrupted csum
On 06/02/2014 07:44 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Christian Kujau suggested in the wiki[] to post project ideas to the
> list to give them some possible wider discussion.
>
> So far I've had these ideas:
>
> 1) NFS 4 ACLs[1]
> Not sure whether it has been proposed and/or rejected
David Sterba on Tue, 2014/06/03 18:52:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:29:19PM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
> > gcc 4.9.0 gives a warning: array subscript is above array bounds
> >
> > Checking for "greater or equal" instead of just "equal" fixes this.
>
> That fixes the warning, but I don't see t
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:22:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2014 14:57:26 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 06/02/2014 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The possible uses I can see for non-ktime_t types in the kernel are:
> * inodes need 96 bit timestamps to represent the full rang
On 06/03/2014 05:46 AM, Duncan wrote:
>> Interesting. I have set autodefrag in fstab. I _may_ have previously
>> tried to defrag the top-level subvolume - faint memory, that is
>> pointless, as if a file exists in more than one subvolume and it is
>> changed in one or more it cannot be optimally
On 02/06/14 14:22, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 06:00 PM, Martin wrote:
>> OK... I'll jump in...
>>
>> On 30/05/14 21:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> TL;DR: I want to only do snapshot-aware defrag on inodes in snapshots
>>> that haven't changed since the snapshot was taken. Yay or
On 06/04/2014 12:37 AM, David Sterba wrote:
Explicitly say which critical root is corrupted. It is possible to
repair or reset some of the roots with a special option.
David, thanks for doing this:-)
CC: Wang Shilong
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
Patch based on the fsck branch from integr
On 06/04/2014 12:21 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:25:49AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
On 06/03/2014 01:27 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:59:57PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
If checksum root is corrupted, fsck will get segmentation. This
is because if we f
Hi Qu,
in-line below.
On 03/06/14 14:28, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: Should btrfs reuse the src_dev's dev UUID when doing dev
replacing?
From: Anand Jain
To: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs
Date: 2014年05月22日 11:09
Thanks Qu for bringing up this topic. We de
David,
Thanks for the comments
As of now with out this patch the sysfs interface under dir
/sys/fs/btrfs//devices is just link to the block devs.
At this point it's part of the sysfs ABI and should not be changed.
can't we lean on the experimental clause to change it either ?
practical
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: Add ctime/mtime update for btrfs device
add/remove.
From: David Sterba
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2014年05月29日 20:43
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:02:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
@@ -1704,10 +1720,14 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs
Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:20:08 +0800 as excerpted:
> Man page for 'btrfs-balance' mentioned but does not explain
> them, which make end users hard to use '-d', '-m' or '-s options.
>
> This patch will use the explanations from
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Balance_Filt
Original Message
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] btrfs-progs: fix compiler warning
From: Christian Hesse
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年06月03日 19:29
gcc 4.9.0 gives a warning: array subscript is above array bounds
Checking for "greater or equal" instead of just "equal" fixes
38 matches
Mail list logo
