On Monday 31 Aug 2015 09:20:24 Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:14:48PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > When creating small Btrfs filesystem instances (i.e. filesystem size <=
> > 1GiB), mkfs.btrfs can fail if "data block size" does not match "metadata
> > block size". In such ca
Move to use get_unit_mode_from_arg() for btrfs qgroup command,
to make "btrfs qgroup show"'s unit argument same with other
tools.
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
---
cmds-qgroup.c | 47 ---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-qg
Move to use get_unit_mode_from_arg() for cmds-filesystem.c,
to make "btrfs filesystem df/show/usage"'s unit argument same.
Also have cleanup effect: 19 insertions(+), 181 deletions(-)
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
---
cmds-fi-usage.c | 79 ---
cmds-filesystem.c | 12
We are using separate code for parse unit mode in current code,
better to use common function.
This patchset introduce common function to parse arguments for setting
unit: get_unit_mode_from_arg()
and common help message for unit argument, to make every tool in btrfs having
same interface for sett
Move to use get_unit_mode_from_arg() for cmds-device.c,
to make "btrfs device usage"'s unit argument same with other
tools.
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
---
cmds-device.c | 74 ++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
diff --git a/c
We are using separate code for parse unit mode in current code,
better to use common function.
This patch introduce common function for to arguments for setting
unit, and a common help message, to make every tool in btrfs having
same unit argument.
The merit are:
1: Unify current each tool's argu
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:17:44AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Does anyone know when this changed? Maybe it's a 4.2 thing... anyway
> it's very much welcome!
And another "side effect" is that /proc/self/mountinfo will report the
mounted subvolume, even if it was an implicit mount of non-toplevel
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:03:42PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> @@ -859,88 +859,23 @@ out:
> const char * const cmd_filesystem_usage_usage[] = {
> "btrfs filesystem usage [options] [..]",
> "Show detailed information about internal filesystem usage .",
> - "-b|--raw raw numb
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:03:40PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Zhao Lei (4):
> btrfs-progs: Introduce get_unit_mode_from_arg for common use
> btrfs-progs: Use common unit parser for btrfs filesystem command
> btrfs-progs: Use common unit parser for btrfs device command
> btrfs-progs: Use commo
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:04:36PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> For example, $TEST_DIR is common used in severial tests, and have
> duplicated code for initialize.
>
> These duplicated code not only benifits harddisk vendor, but have
> inconsistent details, as:
> convert-tests.sh: lack of mkdir
>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:04:37PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> +mount_test_dev()
> +{
> + local loop_opt
> + if [[ -b "$TEST_DEV" ]]; then
> + loop_opt=()
> + elif [[ -f "$TEST_DEV" ]]; then
> + loop_opt=(-o loop)
> + else
> + _fail "Invalid \$TEST_D
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:04:38PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> If a testcase failed, we can't run it(or other tests needs mount) again,
> # ./misc-tests.sh 007
>[TEST] 007-subvolume-sync
>failed: fail
>test failed for case 007-subvolume-sync
> # ./misc-tests.sh 007
>[TEST] 007-
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:38:16AM +0900, Byongho Lee wrote:
> In btrfs-convert main(), strdup() allocates memory to fslabel but that
> memory is not freed. We could fix it by adding free() calls to every
> return point, but that would make the code messy because there are
> several return paths.
>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:03:36PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> We can trigger the bug by following operation:
> (no wait between commands 3~5)
> btrfs subvolume create /mnt/btrfs/mysubvol
> btrfs subvolume snapshot /mnt/btrfs/mysubvol /mnt/btrfs/mysubvol_snap
> btrfs subvolume delete /mnt/btrf
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:03:38PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Reproduce:
> # btrfs subvolume sync /mnt/btrfs
> Subvolume id 323 is gone
> # echo $?
> 1
> #
>
> Reason:
> wait_for_subvolume_cleaning() return !0 in right case, because
> value of ret is set to "is subvolume clean" state before r
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:03:37PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> No need prepare memory for enumerate_dead_subvols() in caller, and pass
> additional argument for allocated length.
>
> Just do every thing inside enumerate_dead_subvols(), it will not
> increase malloc count, but make code simple.
>
> S
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:03:39PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Instead of using a dirty-subvolumn-counter in old code, this patch
> turn to use a simple and direct way:
> If (not dirty-subvolumn found in current loop) {
> return all_clean;
> }
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
Applied with mino
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:44:28PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:30:58PM +0900, 강상우 wrote:
> > I change the code that you are suggest.
>
> Well, it's still not exactly what I expected. I'll add the makefile bits
> from you patch and do the wrappers and ifdefs myself. It's
> Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason :
>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have
>> a valid queue pointer in it's gendisk for ->s_bdev. And there are
>> some fishy looking ->s_bdev assignm
I've filed bug https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103811 on a
recent kernel bug I've encountered using btrfs after changing raid level
online.
Let me know if there's any more info I can provide, I haven't formatted
that file system yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:16:21PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> For small filesystem instances (i.e. size <= 1 GiB), mkfs.btrfs fails when
> "data block size" does not match with the "metadata block size" specified on
> the mkfs.btrfs command line. This commit increases the size of filesystem
>
I'm getting kernel crash and complete system lockup when trying to access
journal on two disk btrfs filesystem with data/metadata as RAID1.
I can't get proper log because whole system hangs and even kdump fails,
seems it doesn't start or I'm doing something wrong.
Also because there are several c
hi,
i'm doing a ~900TiB receive on a 6x4TB RAID0
"fi show", "device scan" all fail and report "unable to connect to /dev/sdX"
is it normal ?
thanks,
Vincent
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More maj
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:11:46AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Any comment on the git pull?
> As it's not picked yet nor any objection here.
Hi Qu,
Some of these were already in integration, but I've picked the rest.
Thanks!
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
Resending, as I received no comments on previous submission.
Currently BTRFS allows you to make bad choices of data and
metadata levels. For example -d raid1 -m raid0 means you can
only use half your total disk space, but will loose everything
if 1 disk fails. It should give a warning in these ca
We offer private, commercial and personal loans with very low annualinterest
rates as low as 2% in one year to 50 years repayment period anywhere in the
world. We offer loans ranging from $5000 to $100 million. Our loans are well
insured for maximum security is our priority. Are you losing sleep
On 2015-08-31 14:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:16:21PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
For small filesystem instances (i.e. size <= 1 GiB), mkfs.btrfs fails when
"data block size" does not match with the "metadata block size" specified on
the mkfs.btrfs command line. This co
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 03:19:22PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> AFAIK, it shouldn't be failing that way, and should automatically switch to
> mixed mode allocation. A 1G filesystem should work fine for BTRFS, but
> smaller ones will have higher chances of ENOSPC issues (inversely
> proporti
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:32:09PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> > Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason :
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have
> >> a valid queue poi
2015-08-31 18:14 GMT+00:00 Dāvis Mosāns :
> I'm getting kernel crash and complete system lockup when trying to access
> journal on two disk btrfs filesystem with data/metadata as RAID1.
>
> I can't get proper log because whole system hangs and even kdump fails,
> seems it doesn't start or I'm doing
On Monday 31 Aug 2015 14:11:27 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:16:21PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > For small filesystem instances (i.e. size <= 1 GiB), mkfs.btrfs fails when
> > "data block size" does not match with the "metadata block size" specified
> > on the mkfs.btrfs
On Tuesday 01 Sep 2015 05:49:14 Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> On Monday 31 Aug 2015 14:11:27 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:16:21PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > > For small filesystem instances (i.e. size <= 1 GiB), mkfs.btrfs fails
> > > when
> > > "data block size" does not
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:49:14AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> mkfs.btrfs when invoked on small filesystems by "not" specifying any block
> sizes (i.e. mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sda1) will automatically create filesystem
> instance with "data block size" == "metadata block size". However in the
> sub
On Monday 31 Aug 2015 22:15:10 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:49:14AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > mkfs.btrfs when invoked on small filesystems by "not" specifying any block
> > sizes (i.e. mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sda1) will automatically create filesystem
> > instance with "dat
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 09:10:13PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> The following call trace is seen when generic/095 test is executed,
>
> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 2769 at
> /home/chandan/code/repos/linux/fs/btrfs/inode.c:8967
> btrfs_destroy_inode+0x284/0x2a0()
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 3 PID: 2
Am 01.09.2015 um 02:06 schrieb Chris Mason:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:32:09PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason :
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn
36 matches
Mail list logo
