On 2018/07/26 15:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Under certain case, btrfs/166 could cause power loss just after quota
> tree initialized but rescan not kicked in.
>
> In this case, since flags of qgroup status item is just ON |
> INCONSISTENT, without RESCAN flag, rescan won't be kicked in in next
> mount
On 2018年07月26日 15:21, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/07/26 15:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Under certain case, btrfs/166 could cause power loss just after quota
>> tree initialized but rescan not kicked in.
>>
>> In this case, since flags of qgroup status item is just ON |
>> INCONSISTENT, without R
Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, there is a
small window that quota status has (ON | INCONSISTENT) bits set but
without RESCAN bits set.
And transaction is committed inside the window and then power loss
happens, we will have a quota tree with all qgroup numbers set to 0
[based on latest misc-next]
v7:
Use struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args (instead of struct
btrfs_ioctl_vol_args_v2) as its inline with other ioctl
btrfs-control
The CLI usage remains same. However internally the ioctl flag is not
required to delete all the unmounted devices. Instead leave
btrfs_
Support for a new command 'btrfs dev forget [dev]' is proposed here,
to undo the effects of 'btrfs dev scan [dev]'. For this purpose,
this patch proposes to use ioctl #5 as it was empty.
IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 5, ..)
This patch adds new ioctl BTRFS_IOC_FORGET_DEV which can be sent from
the
This patch adds cli
btrfs device forget [dev]
to remove the given device structure in the kernel if the device
is unmounted. If no argument is given it shall remove all stale
(device which are not mounted) from the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds-device.c | 58 ++
On 2018年07月26日 14:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Under certain case, btrfs/166 could cause power loss just after quota
> tree initialized but rescan not kicked in.
>
> In this case, since flags of qgroup status item is just ON |
> INCONSISTENT, without RESCAN flag, rescan won't be kicked in in next
> mo
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
> Support for a new command 'btrfs dev forget [dev]' is proposed here,
> to undo the effects of 'btrfs dev scan [dev]'. For this purpose,
> this patch proposes to use ioctl #5 as it was empty.
> IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 5, ..)
> This patch
From: Omar Sandoval
Hi, Dave,
Here's v2 of "btrfs-progs: make all programs and libraries optional",
this time much less overkill. Now, it's just --disable-programs,
--disable-shared, and --disable-static. Based on your devel branch.
Please consider these for the next progs release.
Thanks!
Oma
From: Omar Sandoval
The build system mentioned in the previous commit builds libraries in
both PIC and non-PIC mode. Shared libraries don't work in PIC mode, so
it expects a --disable-shared configure option, which most open source
libraries using autoconf have. Let's add it, too.
Signed-off-by:
From: Omar Sandoval
We have a build system internally which only needs to build and install
the libraries out of a repository, not any binaries. There's no easy way
to do this in btrfs-progs currently. Add --disable-programs to
./configure to support this.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
Make
I was testing my new xfstest posted here:
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2018-July/016850.html
against a btrfs test device + scrach device setup, and hit a lockdep
splat. I'm using vanilla v4.18.6.
I've attached the splats to this mail, one just as it happened in
dmesg and one pass
On 07/26/2018 11:25 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
Support for a new command 'btrfs dev forget [dev]' is proposed here,
to undo the effects of 'btrfs dev scan [dev]'. For this purpose,
this patch proposes to use ioctl #5 as it was empty.
When btrfs hits error after modifying fs_devices in
btrfs_init_new_device() (such as btrfs_add_dev_item() returns error), it
leaves everything as is, but frees allocated btrfs_device. As a result,
fs_devices->devices and fs_devices->alloc_list contain already freed
btrfs_device, leading to later us
Hi Ross,
Thanks for the report. I have analyzed it here [1] earlier and is
harmless since lockdep checks doesn't seem to account for the
difference in the lock time-space, there is similar fix in block
layer as well (which I am unable to pull the ref as of now, but
will try again). And thi
[based on latest misc-next]
v8:
Change log update in the kernel patch.
v7:
Use struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args (instead of struct
btrfs_ioctl_vol_args_v2) as its inline with other ioctl
btrfs-control
The CLI usage remains same. However internally the ioctl flag is not
required to delete all
Support for a new command 'btrfs dev forget [dev]' is proposed here
to undo the effects of 'btrfs dev scan [dev]'. For this purpose
this patch proposes to use ioctl #5 as it was empty.
IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 5, ..)
This patch adds new ioctl BTRFS_IOC_FORGET_DEV which can be sent from
the /d
This patch adds cli
btrfs device forget [dev]
to remove the given device structure in the kernel if the device
is unmounted. If no argument is given it shall remove all stale
(device which are not mounted) from the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds-device.c | 58 ++
On 2018/07/26 18:15, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, there is a
> small window that quota status has (ON | INCONSISTENT) bits set but
> without RESCAN bits set.
>
> And transaction is committed inside the window and then power loss
> happens, we will
On 2018年07月27日 09:10, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/07/26 18:15, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, there is a
>> small window that quota status has (ON | INCONSISTENT) bits set but
>> without RESCAN bits set.
>>
>> And transaction is committed insi
On 2018/07/27 10:19, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年07月27日 09:10, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
>> On 2018/07/26 18:15, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, there is a
>>> small window that quota status has (ON | INCONSISTENT) bits set but
>>> without RESCAN b
On 2018年07月27日 09:43, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/07/27 10:19, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年07月27日 09:10, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
>>> On 2018/07/26 18:15, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, there is a
small window that quota status has
On 2018/07/27 15:09, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年07月27日 09:43, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
>> On 2018/07/27 10:19, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018年07月27日 09:10, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
On 2018/07/26 18:15, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, t
23 matches
Mail list logo
