Re: [PATCH] Backport for 2.6.27 and 2.6.26 on the experimental branch

Lee Trager wrote: The more and more I look at this problem the more I tend to think that the issue is because of some change in the way the VFS or something interacts with the file system. Does anyone know of any big changes? Why is the inode being marked dirty? Is there some kind of read error.

Re: [PATCH] Backport for 2.6.27 and 2.6.26 on the experimental branch

I ran a few tests that Jim suggested and found that btrfs works fine on 2.6.26 as long as there are only 23 or less files on the file system. Anymore and I experience the lockup. Jim and I will be working to find a solution but if anyone else has any clues that would be greatly appreciated. Lee

btrfs: introduce btrfs_show_options

btrfs options can change at times other than mount, yet /proc/mounts shows the options string used when the fs was mounted (an example would be when btrfs determines that barriers aren't useful and turns them off.) This patch instead outputs the actual options in use by btrfs. Signed-off-by:

btrfs: warn_slowpath in clean_tree_block and others

This is essentially a repost of a mail I made last week, to which I didn't get a reply. I'm getting huge numbers of kernel warnings whilst using btrfs. They're all warn_slowpath, and all seem to be in fs/btrfs/disk-io.c. I've included one typical example at the end of this mail. Kernel

questions about GRUB and BTRFS

Hi, A quick googling turns up posts that GRUB support for BTRFS is planned. My curiosity is more towards how this will be managed, because the way this is currently implemented with software RAID/LVM is quite haphazard. I therefore have some questions about GRUB + BTRFS: -With GRUB booting, it's

Re: questions about GRUB and BTRFS

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Anthony Roberts btrfs-de...@arbitraryconstant.com wrote: Hi, A quick googling turns up posts that GRUB support for BTRFS is planned. My curiosity is more towards how this will be managed, because the way this is currently implemented with software RAID/LVM is

[PATCH] btrfs: return inode to fs when btrfs_new_inode fails

btrfs_new_inode doesn't call iput to return inode to fs when it fails. Signed-off-by: Shen Feng s...@cn.fujitsu.com --- fs/btrfs/inode.c |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index 3cee77a..2cae014 100644 ---

lots of kernel threads

I'm a Gentoo user and figured mounting /usr/portage /var/portage (distfiles, packages, persistent stuff normally in /usr/portage) and /tmp moiunted as btrfs. I figured it would be a decent test its nothing I cann't replace readily. After about 6 hours of uptime and a couple package merges, I

Re: btrfs: warn_slowpath in clean_tree_block and others

I have also been getting similar warnings filling up my logs. However, in my case, I have been experimenting with back-porting btrfs to a 2.6.28 kernel. So I've been waiting for the back-porting efforts to get a little further along. But I thought I'd respond in case this information helps.

Re: questions about GRUB and BTRFS

I'm not sure when we should start developing BTRFS support for GRUB but I do agree that it will be very difficult to support all the features of BTRFS. As far as I know GRUB does not support LVM and only supports RAID1. Doing this shouldn't be that hard to do, in fact it should be easier to do

Re: btrfs: warn_slowpath in clean_tree_block and others

Mitch, I haven't seen any problems using BTRFS and my patch on 2.6.28 or 2.6.27, what are you doing to cause this error? Are you using the latest sources from btrfs-unstable? Lee Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote: I have also been getting similar warnings filling up my logs. However, in my