When using gcc 4.8.2, -Wmaybe-uninitialized will report root_item may be
used uninitialized.
Since root_item_valid variant is used to determine the root_item valid,
it's a false alert and to avoid the warning, just init it on allocation.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:27:51 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:08:57PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -142,6 +142,12 @@ static int start_log_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
mutex_lock(root-log_mutex);
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:23:37 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:08:54PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
@@ -1352,13 +1347,15 @@ static struct btrfs_root *alloc_log_tree(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
root-root_key.objectid = BTRFS_TREE_LOG_OBJECTID;
root-root_key.type
Currently, btrfs balance start fails when trying to convert metadata or
system chunks to dup profile on filesystems with multiple devices. This
requires that a conversion from a multi-device filesystem to a single
device filesystem use the following methodology:
1. btrfs balance start
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
I've applied your patch from
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git/commit/?id=1334bebe71bebbca47b3b92f25511ea980fdeab8
I can confirm this fixed the btrfs send error on my server, thank you.
At snapshot
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:25:24AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
On 02/26/2014 12:28 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 07:48:57PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
ctree.h | 8 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:15:12PM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
We don't need to have an unsigned int field in the extent_map struct
to tell us whether the extent map is in the inode's extent_map tree or
not. We can use the rb_node struct field and the RB_CLEAR_NODE and
Jannis Achstetter jannis_achstetter at web.de writes:
I tried yout btrfs deduplication patches today (on top of 3.13.2-gentoo) and
it seems that the deduplication works great (when copying the same or
similar data to the file system, the used size reported by df -h grows less
than the data
On 25 February 2014 10:28, Mike Fleetwood mike.fleetw...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25 February 2014 03:01, Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com wrote:
# mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdb4
# mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/1
# btrfs device delete /dev/sdb2 /mnt/1
So /dev/sdb2 is no longer part of the
On 29 January 2014 21:06, Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
After the commit titled Btrfs: fix btrfs boot when compiled as built-in,
LIBCRC32C requirement was removed from btrfs' Kconfig. This made it not
possible to build a kernel with btrfs enabled (either as module or
This gets rid of a usually needless call to iov_iter_advance().
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com
Cc: Alexander Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: Jens Axboe ax...@kernel.dk
Cc: Chris Mason c...@fb.com
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Steve French sfre...@samba.org
Cc:
This is going to be important for future (hopeful) block layer refactoring, and
using the standard primitives makes the code easier to audit.
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com
Cc: Chris Mason c...@fb.com
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 12 ---
So there's no need for btrfs to break up bios for device limits anymore
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com
Cc: Chris Mason c...@fb.com
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 73 --
1 file changed, 73
On 25.02.2014 22:30, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:27 PM, Marcus Sundman wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:19, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:05:51PM -0500, Jim Salter wrote:
370GB of 410GB used isn't really fine, it's over 90% usage.
That said, I'd be interested to know why btrfs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/2014 07:16 PM, Marcus Sundman wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:30, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:27 PM, Marcus Sundman wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:19, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:05:51PM -0500, Jim Salter wrote:
370GB of 410GB
Hi Jannis,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:20:01PM +, Jannis Achstetter wrote:
Jannis Achstetter jannis_achstetter at web.de writes:
I tried yout btrfs deduplication patches today (on top of 3.13.2-gentoo) and
it seems that the deduplication works great (when copying the same or
similar
As we know, btrfs flushes the continuous pages as many as possible,
but if all the free spaces are small, we will allocate the spaces by
several times, and if there is something wrong with the space
reservation, it is very likely that some allocations succeed and
the others fail. But the current
The write range may not be sector-aligned, for example:
||| - write range, sector-unaligned, size: 2blocks
|||| - correct lock range, size: 3blocks
But according to the old code, we used the size of write range to calculate
the lock range
We can not release the reserved metadata space for the first write if we
find the write position is pre-allocated. Because the kernel might write
the data on the disk before we do the second write but after the can-nocow
check, if we release the space for the first write, we might fail to update
switch to arg_strtou64 plus some cleanups to remove unnecessary
codes.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
v2-v3:
fix a regression in parse_size() where we can not
use new helper actually.
---
btrfs-find-root.c | 23 +++
btrfs-list.c
This is a preparation work, rename waiting_dir_move to send_dir_node.
We'd like to share waiting_dir_move structure in new did_create_dir() code.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com
---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 18 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git
Currently to check whether a directory has been created, we search
DIR_INDEX items one by one to check if children has been processed.
Try to picture such a scenario:
.
|-- dir(ino X)
|-- foo_1(ino X+1)
|-- ...
|-- foo_k(ino X+k)
With the
Currently to check whether a directory has been created, we search
DIR_INDEX items one by one to check if children has been processed.
Try to picture such a scenario:
.
|-- dir(ino X)
|-- foo_1(ino X+1)
|-- ...
|-- foo_k(ino X+k)
With the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:16:07AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:30, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:27 PM, Marcus Sundman wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:19, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:05:51PM -0500, Jim Salter wrote:
370GB of 410GB used isn't really fine, it's
24 matches
Mail list logo
