This implements fallocate's FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE operation for
BTRFS. This fallocate operation was introduced in the linux kernel
version 3.15.
Existing tests in xfstests already test this operation explicitly
and implicitly via fsstress.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the page size. Therefore skip block sizes smaller
then page size if the fs is btrfs, so that the test can succeed
on btrfs (testing only with block sizes of 4kb on systems with a
page size of 4Kb).
Signed-off-by: Filipe
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:30:09 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c: In function ‘btrfs_lock_cluster’:
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6399: warning: ‘used_bg’ may be used uninitialized in
this function
- Replace again: ... goto again; by standard C while (1) { ... },
- Move
Hi Filipe,
(2014/06/23 19:28), Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the page size. Therefore skip block sizes smaller
then page size if the fs is btrfs, so that the test can succeed
on btrfs (testing only with block
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Satoru Takeuchi
takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
(2014/06/23 19:28), Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the page size. Therefore skip block sizes smaller
then page
This new send flag makes send calculate first the amount of new file data (in
bytes)
the send root has relatively to the parent root, or for the case of a
non-incremental
send, the total amount of file data the stream will create (including holes and
prealloc
extents). In other words, it
Instead of sending a write command with a data buffer filled with 0 value bytes,
use the fallocate command, introduced in the send stream version 2, to tell the
receiver to punch a file hole using the fallocate system call.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
---
V2: A v2
The send stream version 2 adds the fallocate command, which can be used to
allocate extents for a file or punch holes in a file. Previously we were
ignoring file prealloc extents or treating them as extents filled with 0
bytes and sending a regular write command to the stream.
After this change,
This increases the send stream version from version 1 to version 2, adding
new commands:
1) total data size - used to tell the receiver how much file data the stream
will add or update;
2) fallocate - used to pre-allocate space for files and to punch holes in files;
3) inode set flags;
4)
If we failed during initialization of sysfs, we weren't unregistering the
top level btrfs sysfs entry nor the debugfs stuff.
Not unregistering the top level sysfs entry makes future attempts to reload
the btrfs module impossible and the following is reported in dmesg:
[ 2246.451296] WARNING: CPU:
So that applications can find out what's the highest send stream
version supported/implemented by the running kernel:
$ cat /sys/fs/btrfs/send/stream_version
2
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
V1..V4: There's no
Hi Filipe,
(2014/06/23 19:55), Filipe David Manana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Satoru Takeuchi
takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
(2014/06/23 19:28), Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the
Often when starting a transaction we commit the currently running transaction,
which can end up writing block group caches when the current process has its
journal_info set to NULL (and not to a transaction). This makes our assertion
at btrfs_check_data_free_space() (current_journal != NULL) fail,
Chris == Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com writes:
Chris Does anyone know if blktrace will intercept the actual SCSI
Chris commands sent to the drive? Or is there a better utility to use
Chris for this? When I use it unfiltered, I'm not seeing SCSI write
Chris commands at all.
# echo
Not subscribed to fstests so not sure if this will reach that mailing
list...
I feel Takeuchi's instincts are right, even if the analysis *may* be
wrong. As is it looks like there should be a btrfs) selector inside the
case.
On 23/06/14 12:48, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
Hi Filipe,
(2014/06/23
Duncan == Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net writes:
Duncan Tho as you point out elsewhere, levels under the filesystem
Duncan layer may split the btrfs 4096 byte block size into 512 byte
Duncan logical sector sizes if appropriate, but that has nothing to do
Duncan with btrfs except that it operates
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:28:00 +0100
From: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
To: fste...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH] generic/017: skip
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:01:32PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
(2014/06/13 7:57), Adam Buchbinder wrote:
It's 32 bits as defined in ctree.h, but the struct had it as 64 bits.
Found using MemorySanitizer.
Signed-off-by: Adam Buchbinder abuchbin...@google.com
It looks good to me.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:51:19PM +0200, Vincent Stehlé wrote:
This patch actually allowed me to finish a btrfs restore of a damaged
filesystem, which was repeateadly crashing otherwise. This was with v3.12, but
I think it still makes sense.
It does, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com
To: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
Cc: fste...@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic/017: skip invalid block sizes
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:46:01AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
For btrfs-image,
dumpmay not come with option '-o'
-r may not come with option '-c', '-s', '-w', dev_cnt != 1
-m may not come with dev_cnt 2
All of the above should be regarded as invalid
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:46:02AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
When btrfs-image failed to create an image, the invalid output file
had better be deleted to prevent being used mistakenly in the future.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng guihc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
btrfs-image.c | 10 +-
1
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs has global block reservation, so even mkfs.btrfs can execute
without problem, there is still a possibility that the filesystem can't
be mounted.
For example when mkfs.btrfs on a 8M file on x86_64 platform, kernel will
refuse to
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 08:29:58AM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
+static int account_shared_subtree(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
+ struct btrfs_root *root,
+ struct extent_buffer *root_eb,
+ u64
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:13:41AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs has global block reservation, so even mkfs.btrfs can execute
without problem, there is still a possibility that the filesystem can't
be mounted.
For example when mkfs.btrfs on a 8M file on x86_64 platform, kernel will
refuse to
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:23:48AM +0200, Nils Steinger wrote:
+ rmdir -p --ignore-fail-on-non-empty $(DESTDIR)$(man8dir)
+ rmdir -p --ignore-fail-on-non-empty $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)
+ rmdir -p --ignore-fail-on-non-empty $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)
I don't think it's right to remove the
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com
To: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
Cc: fste...@vger.kernel.org,
Distro: Linux Mint 16
Kernel: 3.11.0-12-generic
Btrfs (used to create): 0.20-rc1 (current version in Mint repo)
Btrfs (used to troubleshoot): 3.14.2
Setup: sda6 is a luks container with btrfs inside. Btrfs has
subvolumes @ (/) and @home (/home).
I was doing nothing in particular on my laptop
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:28:00AM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the page size.
Nor larger.
commit 8d082fb727ac11930ea20bf1612e334ea7c2b697
Author: Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: Tue Apr 3 09:56:53
(2014/06/23 22:44), David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:01:32PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
(2014/06/13 7:57), Adam Buchbinder wrote:
It's 32 bits as defined in ctree.h, but the struct had it as 64 bits.
Found using MemorySanitizer.
Signed-off-by: Adam Buchbinder
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 0ec8766..41209e8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -3751,10 +3751,10 @@ static struct btrfs_trans_handle
*__unlink_start_trans(struct inode
On 06/22/2014 11:38 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/21/2014 06:16 PM, Kevin Brandstatter wrote:
so ive come accross the issue of being unable to remove a file when a
subvolume quota is reached. This can be resolved by truncating the file
first, or removing the quota temporarily.
However, it
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: Add minimum device size check.
From: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: 2014年06月23日 22:36
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs has global block reservation, so
Btrfs has global block reservation, so even mkfs.btrfs can execute
without problem, there is still a possibility that the filesystem can't
be mounted.
For example when mkfs.btrfs on a 8M file on x86_64 platform, kernel will
refuse to mount due to ENOSPC, since system block group takes 4M and
mixed
On Jun 23, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Mike Hartman m...@hartmanipulation.com wrote:
Can anyone offer any suggestions? Is this data really unrecoverable? I
have no idea what could have gone so severely wrong.
btrfs check --repair /media/mint/usb_data/sda6_check.img
btrfs check --repair --init-csum-tree
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 16:15 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:46:02AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
When btrfs-image failed to create an image, the invalid output file
had better be deleted to prevent being used mistakenly in the future.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 16:12 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:46:01AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
For btrfs-image,
dumpmay not come with option '-o'
-r may not come with option '-c', '-s', '-w', dev_cnt != 1
-m may not come with dev_cnt 2
All
On 06/24/2014 09:17 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 23, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Mike Hartman m...@hartmanipulation.com wrote:
Can anyone offer any suggestions? Is this data really unrecoverable? I
have no idea what could have gone so severely wrong.
btrfs check --repair
Hi Filipe,
(2014/06/23 20:58), Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
Often when starting a transaction we commit the currently running transaction,
which can end up writing block group caches when the current process has its
journal_info set to NULL (and not to a transaction). This makes our
For btrfs-image,
dumpmay not come with option '-o'
-r may not come with option '-c', '-s', '-w', dev_cnt != 1
-m may not come with dev_cnt 2
All of the above should be regarded as invalid combinations,
and the usage will show up.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
When btrfs-image failed to create an image, the invalid output file
had better be deleted to prevent being used mistakenly in the future.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng guihc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
changelog
v1-v2: use a new local variable to avoid return value overwritten
---
btrfs-image.c
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 10:36 +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
For btrfs-image,
dumpmay not come with option '-o'
-r may not come with option '-c', '-s', '-w', dev_cnt != 1
-m may not come with dev_cnt 2
All of the above should be regarded as invalid combinations,
and
I have a dd image, but not a btrfs-image. I ran the btrfs-image
command, but it threw the same errors as everything else and generated
a 0 byte file.
I agree that it SOUNDS like some kind of media failure, but if so it
seems odd to me that I was able to dd the entire partition with no
read
I have no particular desire to use it. I just tried everything else
first and thought it was worth a shot.
If you think that version would help, can you point me to the git
repo? The one I grabbed was
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 10:38 +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
When btrfs-image failed to create an image, the invalid output file
had better be deleted to prevent being used mistakenly in the future.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng guihc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
changelog
v1-v2: use a new local
Hi Mike,
On 06/24/2014 11:04 AM, Mike Hartman wrote:
I have no particular desire to use it. I just tried everything else
first and thought it was worth a shot.
If you think that version would help, can you point me to the git
repo? The one I grabbed was
For btrfs-image,
dumpmay not come with option '-o'
-r may not come with option '-c', '-s', '-w', dev_cnt != 1
-m may not come with dev_cnt 2
All of the above should be regarded as invalid combinations,
and the usage will show up.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
When btrfs-image failed to create an image, the invalid output file
had better be deleted to prevent being used mistakenly in the future.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng guihc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
changelog
v1-v2: use a new local variable to avoid return value overwritten
v2-v3: fix
On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Mike Hartman m...@hartmanipulation.com wrote:
I have a dd image, but not a btrfs-image. I ran the btrfs-image
command, but it threw the same errors as everything else and generated
a 0 byte file.
I agree that it SOUNDS like some kind of media failure, but if so
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:09:18PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com
To: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com
Cc: fste...@vger.kernel.org,
Of course it could just be a bug so it's worth trying David's integration
branch.
I'll try that shortly.
* Firmware Version: 0006
Firmware 0007 is current for this SSD.
I assume that's probably not something I should mess with right now
though, right?
6 0x008 4
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:28:00 +0100
Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the page size.
Just in case anyone misses this, there is some work to address this limitation:
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Mike Hartman m...@hartmanipulation.com wrote:
Firmware 0007 is current for this SSD.
I assume that's probably not something I should mess with right now
though, right?
I would deal with that later. A firmware change now might make things worse if
you care
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:26:46 +1000
From: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com
To: Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com
Cc: Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com, fste...@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]
Duncan posted on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 01:53:45 + as excerpted:
However, because btrfs stores very small files (generally something
under 16 MiB, the precise size depends on filesystem parameters)
entirely within metadata
Hmm. Should be under 16 KiB I believe, not 16 MiB.
--
Duncan - List
Martin K. Petersen posted on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:24:04 -0400 as excerpted:
Anyway. The short answer is that Linux will pretty much always do I/O in
multiples of the system page size regardless of the logical block size
of the underlying device. There are a few exceptions to this such as
My two cents:-)
If you really want to use btrfs check --init-csum-tree
--init-extent-tree,
i'd suggest you use
David Latest btrfs-progs branch which includes some latest bug fixes.
I have no particular desire to use it. I just tried everything else
first and thought it was worth a shot.
I zeroed out the drive and ran every smartctl test on it I could find
and it never threw any more errors.
Zeroing SSDs isn't a good way to do it. Use ATA Secure Erase instead. The
drive is overprovisioned, so there are pages without LBAs assigned, which
means they can't be written to by
58 matches
Mail list logo
