Hi all,
First of all, I am talking about btrfs-progs 3.16.2 if there was any doubt.
I did some more checking and found the following disturbing results.
I can still create snapshots of subvolumes and the default subvolume (/)
without problems. But sending the snapshot fails with the error:
ERR
On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 02 Oktober 2014, 21:55:55 schrieb Marc Dietrich:
>> Will try to restore the file using btrfs restore
>
> ok, restore worked. I did some more tests. This is unrelated to CoW. It seems
> that the "fallocate -n" in combination with "
A user had a corrupted fs where his items where shifted oddly. This adds the
functionality I needed to btrfs-corrupt-block in order to reproduce this
corruption in order to make fsck fix this sort of problem. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
---
V1->V2: fix shift issue, we need to use btrfs_l
A user had a corrupted fs where the items had been shifted improperly. This
patch adds the ability to fix this sort of problem within fsck. We will simply
shift the item over to the proper offset and update the offsets to make sure
they are correct. I tested this with a hand crafted fs that was
Usually if we find a bad block during the extent tree stuff we will error out,
but if the bad block is in an fs tree and doens't have extents in it then fsck
may still pass even though the block was complete garbage. So add the check
block logic to the fs root checking so we actually error out of
We can deal with corrupt items by deleting them in a few cases. Fsck can easily
recover from a missing extent item or a dir index item. So if we notice a item
is completely bogus and it is of a key that we know we can repair then just
delete it and carry on. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
It is highly obnoxious to have to go put in a testdev when all you really want
is to run the quick image tests. Make this part optional so if we don't have a
testdev specified we just don't run that particular test. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
---
tests/fsck-tests.sh | 9 +
1 fi
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We can deal with corrupt items by deleting them in a few cases. Fsck can
> easily
> recover from a missing extent item or a dir index item. So if we notice a
> item
> is completely bogus and it is of a key that we know we can repair then jus
On 10/03/2014 11:46 AM, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
We can deal with corrupt items by deleting them in a few cases. Fsck can easily
recover from a missing extent item or a dir index item. So if we notice a item
is completely bogus and it is of a key
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Jogi Hofmüller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First of all, I am talking about btrfs-progs 3.16.2 if there was any doubt.
>
> I did some more checking and found the following disturbing results.
>
> I can still create snapshots of subvolumes and the default subvol
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 06:53:49PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> Two patches removing some 'unlikely' branch hints where it does not make much
> sense. Sent separately from the other cleanups in case they do not seem to
> fit.
>
> You can pull from
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/
The RCU-friendly string API used internally by BTRFS is generic enough for
common use. This doesn't add any new functionality, but instead just moves the
code and documents the existing API.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
---
Version 4 doesn't
Hi Omar,
Am 2014-10-03 um 18:53 schrieb Omar Sandoval:
> There was a similar issue in btrfs-progs 3.16 that was fixed in 3.16.1 by this
> commit:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=6a47725a6fb8a463dd60611800222c7297195588
>
> I'd do a quick `btrfs --v
On 10/02/2014 03:27 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Got this when running balance with 3.17.0-rc7:
Give these two patches a try
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4938281/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4939761/
Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
On 2014-10-03 20:17 (Fri), Josef Bacik wrote:
On 10/02/2014 03:27 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Got this when running balance with 3.17.0-rc7:
Give these two patches a try
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4938281/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4939761/
With these two patches applied
Can you make a btrfs-image of this fs and send it to me? Thanks,
Josef
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
On 2014-10-03 20:17 (Fri), Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 03:27 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> Got this when running balance with 3.17.0-rc7:
>>
>
> Give these two patches a try
>
> https://
BTW still seeing this with 3.17-rc7 when running balance (it's a
different filesystem than described in "3.17.0-rc7: kernel BUG at
fs/btrfs/relocation.c:931!" thread):
[ 6945.014952] BTRFS info (device sdb5): relocating block group
7079521091584 flags 17
[ 6955.696529] BTRFS info (device sdb5
On 10/03/2014 09:33 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Waiman,
FYI, we noticed the below changes on commit
bd01ec1a13f9a327950c8e3080096446c7804753 ("x86, locking/rwlocks: Enable qrwlocks on
x86")
+--+++
|
18 matches
Mail list logo
