From: Filipe Manana
If we fail to allocate a new data chunk, we were jumping to the error path
without release the transaction handle we got before. Fix this by always
releasing it before doing the jump.
Fixes: 2c9fe8355258 ("btrfs: Fix lost-data-profile caused by balance bg")
Signed-off-by: Fil
From: Filipe Manana
Hi Chris,
Please consider the following fixes for kernel 4.4. Two of them are fixes
to new issues introduced in the 4.4 merge window and 4.4 release candidates.
The other one just fixes a warning message that is confusing and has made
several users wonder if they are supposed
On 2015-12-09 16:48, S.J. wrote:
>> 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation
>> writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a
>> consequence and should not be used to make copies.
>
>> 2. Btrfs needs a better way to make a copy of a volume when there a
On 2015-12-09 22:56, Duncan wrote:
> Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:04:06 -0500 as
> excerpted:
>
>> Agreed. It's not too bad fixing a Gentoo system (as long as
>> /var/lib/portage/world is still correct, you can just nuke the installed
>> package database and emerge world, it'
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:08:51AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-12-09 16:48, S.J. wrote:
> >> 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation
> >> writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a
> >> consequence and should not be used to make copi
Am 10.12.2015 13:41, schrieb Hugo Mills:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:08:51AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-12-09 16:48, S.J. wrote:
1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation
writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a
consequence and sh
On 2015.12.08 at 23:25 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this
> a lot this last couple days.
>
> kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2654!
Just hit the same issue trying to build ghc-7.10.3:
[55704.436096] [ cut here ]--
The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either
the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone
behavior is broken, which wouldn't be very reasuring. I didn't have
time to look into why it's failing yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> The helpers introduced in this commit will be used to make btrfs tests that
> assume 4k as the block size to work on non-4k blocksized filesystem instances
> as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thank
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified and _filter_od
> filtering functions to print information in terms of file blocks rather than
> file offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> The helpers introduced in this commit will be used to make btrfs tests that
> assume 4k as the page size to work on non-4k page-sized systems as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
> com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified and _filter_od
> filtering functions to print information in terms of file blocks rather than
> file offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> ---
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_pages_modified filtering
> function to print information in terms of page size units rather than file
> offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana
Thanks!
> -
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this
> a lot this last couple days.
>
> kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2654!
> invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC KASAN
> CPU: 1 PID: 2566 Comm: trin
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:34:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either
> the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone
> behavior is broken, which wouldn't be very reasuring. I didn't have
> time to look into why
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this
> > a lot this last couple days.
> >
> > kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2654!
> > invalid op
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, S.J. wrote:
>> 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation
>> writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a
>> consequence and should not be used to make copies.
>
>
>> 2. Btrfs needs a better way to make a copy of a volume
* Chris Mason [2015-12-10 20:02]:
> Huh, are you able to reproduce at will? From this code path it should
> mean somebody else is unlocking a page they don't own.
I've got another code path causing this bug that happened during a
"btrfs dev delete missing". Didn't try to reproduce it though, but
Hey.
I'd have an additional question about subvols O:-)
Given the following setup:
5
|
+--root (subvol, /)
+-- mnt (dir)
with the following done:
- init 1
- remount,ro / (i.e. the subvol root)
- mount /dev/btrfs-device /mnt (i.e. mount the top subvol at /mnt)
The following happened:
- / was
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this
> > > a lot this last couple days
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > Not sure if I've already reported t
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jone
Hey.
I'd have an additional question about subvols O:-)
Given the following setup:
5
|
+--root (subvol, /)
+-- mnt (dir)
with the following done:
- init 1
- remount,ro / (i.e. the subvol root)
- mount /dev/btrfs-device /mnt (i.e. mount the top subvol at /mnt)
The following happened:
- /
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > Not sure if I've already report
On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 23:36 +0100, S.J. wrote:
> Quote:
>
> " Most mount options apply to the whole filesystem, and only the
> options
> for the first subvolume
> to be mounted will take effect. This is due to lack of implementation
> and may change in the future. "
>
> from https://btrfs.wiki.k
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > Not sure if I've already report
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:14:29AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:34:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either
> > the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone
> > behavior is broken,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:36 PM, S.J. wrote:
> Quote:
>
> " Most mount options apply to the whole filesystem, and only the options for
> the first subvolume
> to be mounted will take effect. This is due to lack of implementation and
> may change in the future. "
>
> from https://btrfs.wiki.kernel
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:57:20PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25
37 matches
Mail list logo
