> The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
> there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
> actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
> align on 8 sector boundaries. There are some such tools still floating
> a
Hello,
Got this kernel issue today while rsyncing (backup) 2 BTRFS filesystems. I had
never seen this on those disks before upgrading to kernel 3.15.1-1-ARCH a
couple days ago...
Both disks seem to be physically healthy AFAIK.
juin 22 10:56:10 zafu kernel: INFO: task kworker/u4:1:37 blocked f
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c: In function ‘btrfs_lock_cluster’:
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6399: warning: ‘used_bg’ may be used uninitialized in
this function
- Replace "again: ... goto again;" by standard C "while (1) { ... }",
- Move block not processed during the first iteration of the loop to the
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
align on 8 sector boundaries. Th
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
> On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
> >> The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
> >> there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
> >> actually happens when partitionin
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
a
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
a
On 06/21/2014 06:16 PM, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
so ive come accross the issue of being unable to remove a file when a
subvolume quota is reached. This can be resolved by truncating the file
first, or removing the quota temporarily.
However, it should be reasonable that you should alwasy be able
On 06/22/2014 02:32 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hello,
Got this kernel issue today while rsyncing (backup) 2 BTRFS filesystems. I had
never seen this on those disks before upgrading to kernel 3.15.1-1-ARCH a
couple days ago...
Both disks seem to be physically healthy AFAIK.
Will you sysrq+w
On 06/20/2014 02:04 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
Hello Tamas,
I think it would help to provide more information than what you have
posted. "open_ctree" can cover a lot of territory.
1) I may be missing something, but I see no attachment. I am not
sure the mailing list can handle attachment
One thing i note is that I can unlink from a full filesystem.
I tested it by writing a file until the device ran out of space, and
then rm it,
the same method that i used to cause the disk quota error, and it was
able to remove without
issue.
-Kevin
On 06/22/2014 11:38 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On
On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan
wrote:
>> The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
>> there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
>> actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
>> align on 8 se
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:44 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
> This is a problem related to Western Digital drives. They lie in order to be
> compatible with older versions of Windows. Seagate AF drives report 4K, not
> 512B. Western Digital took this path in order to make the drives work with
> old
On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:46 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
>
> http://johannes-bauer.com/linux/wdc/?menuid=3
OK well a post full of hyperbole from an misogynistic jackass doesn't really
convince me there's a real problem here. Telling Linux/fdisk/parted that a 4096
byte physical sector drive is 512
(2014/06/21 4:20), Dan Carpenter wrote:
We had intended to return a negative error code here, but we use the
wrong variable so it returns success.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
Reviewed-by: Satoru Takeuchi
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/btrfs-tests.c b/fs/btrfs/tests/btrfs-tests.c
index 96262
Kevin Brandstatter posted on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:56:30 -0500 as excerpted:
> One thing i note is that I can unlink from a full filesystem.
> I tested it by writing a file until the device ran out of space, and
> then rm it, the same method that i used to cause the disk quota error,
> and it was ab
Hi Nils,
(2014/06/21 4:48), Nils Steinger wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nils Steinger
> ---
> Documentation/Makefile | 4
> Makefile | 9 +
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
> index 45299bb..5c9780b 100644
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:47:10 -0600 as excerpted:
>> As far as I know, btrfs defaults to 4K UNLESS you specify 512B
>
> I'm not sure what this means. The Btrfs sector size minimum is 4096
> bytes.
> I can use -s to make it bigger, but not less than 4096 on 512/512 or
> 512/4096
Signed-off-by: Nils Steinger
---
v2: As Satoru Takeuchi pointed out, I forgot to remove $(libs) in the main
Makefile.
Documentation/Makefile | 4
Makefile | 9 +
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index 4529
(2014/06/23 11:23), Nils Steinger wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nils Steinger
Reviewed-by: Satoru Takeuchi
> ---
>
> v2: As Satoru Takeuchi pointed out, I forgot to remove $(libs) in the main
> Makefile.
>
> Documentation/Makefile | 4
> Makefile | 9 +
> 2 files chan
20 matches
Mail list logo
