On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
[+CC Anand ]
> Booted my system with kernel 5.11.0 vanilla with the first time and received
> this:
>
> BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p2): has skinny extents
> BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): device total_bytes should be at most
> 964757028864 but found
>
On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
>
> [+CC Anand ]
>
>> Booted my system with kernel 5.11.0 vanilla with the first time and received
>> this:
>>
>> BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p2): has skinny extents
>> BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): device
From: Filipe Manana
When doing an fsync we flush all delalloc, lock the inode (vfs lock), flush
any new delalloc that might have been created before taking the lock and
then wait either for the ordered extents to complete or just for the
writeback to complete (depending on whether the full sync f
From: Filipe Manana
We have a race between marking that an inode needs to be logged, either
at btrfs_set_inode_last_trans() or at btrfs_page_mkwrite(), and between
btrfs_sync_log(). The following steps describe how the race happens.
1) We are at transaction N;
2) Inode I was previously fsynced
From: Filipe Manana
Currently btrfs_inode_in_log() checks the list of modified extents of the
inode, and has a comment mentioning why, as it used to be necessary to
make sure if we did something like the following:
mmap write range A
mmap write range B
msync range A (ranged fsync)
msync
From: Filipe Manana
The first patch fixes a race between fsync and memory mapped writes, which
can result in corruptions. The second one fixes a different race that in
practice should be "impossible" to happen, but in case it's triggered
somehow, results in not logging an inode when it has new ex
If btrfs_qgroup_reserve_data returns an error (i.e quota limit reached)
the handling logic directly goes to the 'out' label without first
unlocking the extent range between lockstart, lockend. This results in
deadlocks as processes try to lock the same extent.
Fixes: a7f8b1c2ac21 ("btrfs: file: re
On 2021/2/23 下午9:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
If btrfs_qgroup_reserve_data returns an error (i.e quota limit reached)
the handling logic directly goes to the 'out' label without first
unlocking the extent range between lockstart, lockend. This results in
deadlocks as processes try to lock the sa
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:19:06PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> From: Goffredo Baroncelli
>
> This ioctl is a base for returning / setting information from / to the
> fields of the btrfs_dev_item object.
Please don't add a new ioctl for properties, they're using the xattr as
interface al
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 03:20:42PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> If btrfs_qgroup_reserve_data returns an error (i.e quota limit reached)
> the handling logic directly goes to the 'out' label without first
> unlocking the extent range between lockstart, lockend. This results in
> deadlocks as proc
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:04AM +, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
> >
> > [+CC Anand ]
> >
> >> Booted my system with kernel 5.11.0 vanilla with the first time and
> >> received this:
> >>
> >> BTRFS
Thanks for the info. I upgraded the kernel to 5.10.0-0.bpo.3-amd64.
Filipe Manana , 15 Şub 2021 Pzt, 14:09 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:09 PM Cerem Cem ASLAN wrote:
> >
> > Basically I'm using btrbk to create snapshots on main disk (MMM) and
> > send them 2 distinct disks (
On 2/22/21 11:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 2:34 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
On 2/21/21 1:27 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:44 AM Josef Bacik wrote:
On 2/17/21 11:29 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:59 AM Josef Bacik wrote:
On 2/17/21 9:50
Hello all.
Sorry for asking here directly, but I'm in a desperate situation and
out of options.
I have a 72 TB btrfs filesystem which functions as a backup drive.
After a recent controller hardware failure while the backup was
running, both original and backup fs were severely damaged.
Kernel vers
This test uncovered 2 deadlocks with qgroups when their limit was
reached.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
tests/btrfs/231 | 72 +
tests/btrfs/231.out | 2 ++
tests/btrfs/group | 1 +
3 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 tes
On 2021-02-23 14:30, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:04AM +, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
>
> [+CC Anand ]
>
>> Booted my system with kernel 5.11.0 vanilla with the first time and receiv
On 23/02/2021 18:20, Steven Davies wrote:
> On 2021-02-23 14:30, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:04AM +, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
[+CC Anand ]
> Booted my s
On 2/23/21 2:53 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:19:06PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
This ioctl is a base for returning / setting information from / to the
fields of the btrfs_dev_item object.
Hi David,
Please don't add a new ioctl for pr
I resend it because I made a little mess with the quotation
On 2/23/21 6:59 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:53 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:19:06PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
This ioctl is a base for returning / setting infor
.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Goffredo-Baroncelli/btrfs-add-ioctl-BTRFS_IOC_DEV_PROPERTIES/20210223-062001
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/
The intended logic of the check is to catch cases where the desired
free_space_tree setting doesn't match the mounted setting, and the
remount is anything but ro->rw. However, it makes the mistake of
checking equality on a masked integer (btrfs_test_opt) against a boolean
(btrfs_fs_compat_ro).
If
On 23.02.21 г. 20:22 ч., Boris Burkov wrote:
> The intended logic of the check is to catch cases where the desired
> free_space_tree setting doesn't match the mounted setting, and the
> remount is anything but ro->rw. However, it makes the mistake of
> checking equality on a masked integer (btrf
On 24/02/2021 01:35, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 23/02/2021 18:20, Steven Davies wrote:
On 2021-02-23 14:30, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:04AM +, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
[+
On 23/02/2021 21:53, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:19:06PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
This ioctl is a base for returning / setting information from / to the
fields of the btrfs_dev_item object.
Please don't add a new ioctl for properties, th
24 matches
Mail list logo
