From: Filipe Manana
Test that if we truncate a file to a smaller size, then truncate it to
its original size or a larger size, then fsyncing it and a power failure
happens, the file will have the range [first_truncate_size, last_size[
with all bytes having a value of 0x00 if we read it the next t
Signed-off-by: Patrik Lundquist
---
cmds-inspect.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cmds-inspect.c b/cmds-inspect.c
index 053cf8e..aafe37d 100644
--- a/cmds-inspect.c
+++ b/cmds-inspect.c
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ static int cmd_subvolid_resolve(int argc, char **argv)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:23:59PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:17:46AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
>> >> From: Filipe Manana
>> >>
>> >> When we have the no_ho
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:52:37PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> For the subpagesize-blocksize scenario, a page can contain multiple
> blocks. In such cases, this patch handles writing data to files.
>
> Also, When setting EXTENT_DELALLOC, we no longer set EXTENT_UPTODATE bit on
> the extent_io
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 09:48:05AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:23:59PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:17:46AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.o
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 06:12:57PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:46:44PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Looks OK to me. As I say I'd expect i_version_seen == true to end up
> > being the common case in a lot of v4 workloads, so I'm more skeptical of
> > the claim of a
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 09:10:56AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> while on this. its also good idea to create alias for
>
>btrfs replace start -> btrfs device replace.
This was asked for back then, and briefly discussed on irc (11/2012).
The preference was not to do too much typing, although the
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:41:07PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>> Yes. It's an artefact of the way that mkfs works. If you run a
> >>> balance on those chunks, they'll go away. (btrfs balance start
> >>> -dusage=0 -musage=0 /mountpoint)
> >>
> >> Since I had to explain this very same thing to a
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 10:09:15PM -0700, Davide Italiano wrote:
> - We call inode_size_ok() only if FL_KEEP_SIZE isn't specified.
> - As an optimisation we can skip the call if (off + len)
> isn't greater than the current size of the file. This operation
> is called under the lock so the less
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 10:02:49AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>> Chris Mason (1) commits (+18/-0):
> >>> Btrfs: fix regression in raid level conversion
> >>
> >> Shouldn't this be CC'd to stable since it fixes a broken commit in 4.0?
> >
> > Yes, I'm retesting two of these against 4.0
>
> Did
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:43:56AM +0200, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Patrik Lundquist
Applied, 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 http://vger.kernel.org/major
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:09:16AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> We're also going to want to support aliases, so rather than adding
> another member, replace "hidden" with a "flags" member.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
Fixed compilation breakage and applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from th
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:09:17AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> There's an awkward asymmetry between btrfs device add and btrfs device
> delete. Resolve this by aliasing delete to remove.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
Applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:49:19AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The original implement doesn't output nbytes in btrfs_inode.
> Add the output and since the output is too long, reformat it to multi
> lines.
>
> This is very handy to debug related bugs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Applied, thanks.
JFYI: Not a btrfs bug, but a btrfs-specific misbehaviour of "fuser" that
might easily be misinterpreted as a btrfs bug:
http://bugzilla.centos.org/view.php?id=8966
/usr/sbin/fuser (from psmisc-22.20-8.el7.x86_64) does not list any processes
that have a directory on a btrfs file system as their
I started...
btrfs filesystem defragment -v /some/directory
and this took (unexpectedly, for just 150M of data) a long time (minutes).
So I wondered whether I could see via "strace -p PID" what was going on with
the process.
Immediately when strace tries to attach, the btrfs process dies with
Testing the patch took much longer than I anticipated due to pre-4.1-kernels
being "too risky" for use on our servers, but now it's done and I can say:
This patch, as integrated in linux-4.1, has successfully removed the lags.
Thanks!
Regards,
Lutz Vieweg
On 04/22/2015 06:09 PM, Lutz Vieweg
Hi Chris,
The following patches are based on top of my patch titled "btrfs:
Handle unaligned length in extent_same" which you have in your
'integration-4.2' branch:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git/commit/?id=e1d227a42ea2b4664f94212bd1106b9a3413ffb8
The serie
In the case that we dedupe the tail of a file, we might expand the dedupe
len out to the end of our last block. We don't want to compare data past
i_size however, so pass the original length to btrfs_cmp_data().
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh
Reviewed-by: David Sterba
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 3 ++-
One issue users have reported is that dedupe changes mtime on files,
resulting in tools like rsync thinking that their contents have changed when
in fact the data is exactly the same. Clone still wants an mtime change, so
we special case this in the code.
This was tested with the btrfs-extent-same
->readpage() does page_lock() before extent_lock(), we do the opposite in
extent-same. We want to reverse the order in btrfs_extent_same() but it's
not quite straightforward since the page locks are taken inside
btrfs_cmp_data().
So I split btrfs_cmp_data() into 3 parts with a small context struc
clone() supports cloning within an inode so extent-same can do
the same now. This patch fixes up the locking in extent-same to
know about the single-inode case. In addition to that, we add a
check for overlapping ranges, which clone does not allow.
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh
Reviewed-by: David St
Clone and extent same lock their source and target inodes in opposite order.
In addition to this, the range locking in clone doesn't take ordering into
account. Fix this by having clone use the same locking helpers as
btrfs-extent-same.
In addition, I do a small cleanup of the locking helpers, rem
23 matches
Mail list logo
