Hi stable team,
please add the following patches to stable trees.
Patch #3 applies to all currently live stables, a 7 years old bug. I've
briefly reviewed all 3 patches against 3.10/12/14/16 (ie. 3.4 skips #1
and #2).
Subjects:
Btrfs: read lock extent buffer while walking backrefs
Hi Chris,
We noticed an xfstests failure on commit
8d875f95da43c6a8f18f77869f2ef26e9594fecc (btrfs: disable strict file flushes
for renames and truncates)
It's 100% reproducible in the 5 test runs.
test case: snb-drag/xfstests/4HDD-btrfs-generic-mid
27b9a8122ff71a8 8d875f95da43c6a8f18f77869
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:35:59AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
The close_ctree always returns 0 and the stuff that depends on
its return value is of no sense.
Just make close_ctree return void.
You should not do that if the function contains BUG_ONs, this means the
error path is not handled,
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:17:11AM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote:
According to https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Project_ideas#btrfs
Quote:
merge functionality of btrfstune, eg. under btrfs dev set-seed /dev/
(discuss the command name though)
I've added this project idea long time ago
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:58:20PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
We noticed an xfstests failure on commit
8d875f95da43c6a8f18f77869f2ef26e9594fecc (btrfs: disable strict file flushes
for renames and truncates)
It's 100% reproducible in the 5 test runs.
Same here, different mkfs
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:09:35AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
+ if (name_len + data_len buf_len) {
+ buf_len = name_len + data_len;
+ if (is_vmalloc_addr(buf)) {
+ vfree(buf);
+ buf =
On 08/19/2014 10:23 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:58:20PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
We noticed an xfstests failure on commit
8d875f95da43c6a8f18f77869f2ef26e9594fecc (btrfs: disable strict file
flushes for renames and truncates)
It's 100% reproducible in the 5 test
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:06:01PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
+By default, the show command scans all devices found in /proc/partitions.
The default scanning method is blkid, /proc/partitions used to be the
default before that. Scanning /proc/partitions is not done through the
'show' command,
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:05:52AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
(What seems to be missing, though, is why would the user ever choose to use
'-d?')
That's a fallback method if blkid or udev are not available. We've had
reports in the past that this functionality should not be dropped.
--
To
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:13:03PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
From: Satoru Takeuchi takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com
Current btrfs doesn't display any error message if this command
failed to find any btrfs filesystem corresponding to
path|uuid|device|label which user specified.
I'm not
On 08/18/2014 05:42 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 03:09:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Coverity pointed this out; in the newly added
qgroup_subtree_accounting(), if btrfs_find_all_roots()
returns an error, we leak at least the parents pointer,
and possibly the roots
The crash is
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2124!
[...]
Workqueue: btrfs-endio normal_work_helper [btrfs]
RIP: 0010:[a02d6055] [a02d6055]
end_bio_extent_readpage+0xb45/0xcd0 [btrfs]
This is in fact a regression.
It is because we forgot
We've defined a 'offset' out of bio_for_each_segment_all.
This is just a clean rename, no function changes.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
On 8/19/14, 10:10 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:05:52AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
(What seems to be missing, though, is why would the user ever choose to use
'-d?')
That's a fallback method if blkid or udev are not available. We've had
reports in the past that this
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:24:26PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
we are assigning number_devices to the total_bytes,
that's very confusing for a moment
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:24:20PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
reproducer:
mount /dev/sdb /btrfs
btrfs dev add /dev/sdc /btrfs
btrfs rep start -B /dev/sdb /dev/sdd /btrfs
umount /btrfs
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12661 at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:891
__btrfs_close_devices+0x1b0/0x200 [btrfs]()
::
No problem =).
Then, just ignore patch.
2014-08-19 17:03 GMT+03:00 David Sterba dste...@suse.cz:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:17:11AM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote:
According to https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Project_ideas#btrfs
Quote:
merge functionality of btrfstune, eg. under btrfs
Hello,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
This is what I understood so far. Is this right?
· incremental send/receive works.
· There is no support for hotspares (spare disks that automatically
replaces
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:54:53AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
The new option -f will force to do dangerous changes.
e.g. clear the seeding flag.
missing signed-off-by
--- a/Documentation/btrfstune.txt
+++ b/Documentation/btrfstune.txt
@@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ Enable seeding forces a fs readonly so
· Besides using bcache, are there any possibilities to boost
performance by adding (dedicated) cache-SSDs to a BtrFS?
dm-cache is in the mainline kernel and lvm2 recently added support to
make devicemapper configuration automatic. In my opinion, dm-cache is
a little easier to use because you
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:51:15AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
It seems that the patch is rejected in patchwork,
It was not me :)
Could any one tell me the reason?
I'd understand that the patch is no longer needed after the original
problem went away, but it's not what you describe in your
My miss. Thank you all for pointing out that actually ext4 performed much worse
in this test. I am wondering whether there is some benchmarking has been done
in all sorts of different workloads with comparison to ext4. I know btrfs vs
ext4 is not the apple to apple test, but it will encourage
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:32:16AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
Hi,
Description of the problem:
mount btrfs with selinux context, then create a subvolume, the new
subvolume cannot be mounted, even with the same context.
mkfs -t btrfs /dev/sda5
mount -o context=system_u:object_r:nfs_t:s0
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:53:04PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
But, for right now I'd prefer the admin get involved in using the backup
supers. I think silently using the backups is going to lead to
surprises.
Maybe there could be a mount non-default mount-option to use backup
On 2014-08-19 12:21, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
This is what I understood so far. Is this right?
· incremental send/receive works.
· There is no support for
On 08/19/2014 11:32 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
We've defined a 'offset' out of bio_for_each_segment_all.
This isn't causing problems though? It should just be shadowing the
bio_for_each_segment_all variable for the duration of the curlies.
No objection as a cleanup, just making sure I'm not missing
On 08/06/2014 10:51 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
It seems that the patch is rejected in patchwork,
Could any one tell me the reason?
I had nack'd it because I was worried at the time about the super crc
errors that Dave had found in the past. Sorry, I really thought I had
sent email about it.
But
On 08/19/2014 11:33 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
The crash is
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2124!
[...]
Workqueue: btrfs-endio normal_work_helper [btrfs]
RIP: 0010:[a02d6055] [a02d6055]
end_bio_extent_readpage+0xb45/0xcd0 [btrfs]
This
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, M G Berberich
bt...@oss.m-berberich.de wrote:
Hello,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
I would recommend carefully reading this thread titled: 1 week to
rebuid 4x 3TB
Hi,
On 08/19/2014 06:21 PM, M G Berberich wrote: · Are there any
reports/papers/web-pages about BtrFS-systems this size
in use? Praises, complains, performance-reviews, whatever…
I don't know about papers or benchmarks but few weeks ago there was a
guy who has problem with really long
On 8/19/14, 10:33 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
The crash is
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2124!
[...]
Workqueue: btrfs-endio normal_work_helper [btrfs]
RIP: 0010:[a02d6055] [a02d6055]
end_bio_extent_readpage+0xb45/0xcd0 [btrfs]
This is
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:21:52 +0200
M G Berberich bt...@oss.m-berberich.de wrote:
· BtrFS with RAID1 is fairly stable.
Maybe, but it's not optimized for performance: reads are not balanced in the
most optimal way, and writes may end up being submitted sequentially rather
than in parallel to two
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 02:44:34PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote:
Hello list,
I want to use an ARM kirkwood based NSA325v2 NAS (dubbed Receiver) for
receiving btrfs snapshots done on several hosts, e.g. a Core Duo laptop
running kubuntu 14.04 LTS (dubbed Source), storing them on a 3TB WD
red
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 02:44:34PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote:
Hello list,
I want to use an ARM kirkwood based NSA325v2 NAS (dubbed Receiver) for
receiving btrfs snapshots done on several hosts, e.g. a Core Duo laptop
running
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Don't continue mounting when superblock csum
mismatches even generation is less than 10.
From: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: 2014年08月20日 01:18
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:51:15AM +0800, Qu
we are assigning number_devices to the total_bytes,
that's very confusing for a moment
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
v2: accepts David comment renames ret_sz to tmp
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git
reproducer:
mount /dev/sdb /btrfs
btrfs dev add /dev/sdc /btrfs
btrfs rep start -B /dev/sdb /dev/sdd /btrfs
umount /btrfs
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12661 at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:891
__btrfs_close_devices+0x1b0/0x200 [btrfs]()
::
__btrfs_close_devices()
::
WARN_ON(fs_devices-open_devices);
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Don't continue mounting when superblock csum
mismatches even generation is less than 10.
From: Chris Mason c...@fb.com
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年08月20日 03:48
On 08/06/2014 10:51
On 15/08/2014 12:30, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:50:34AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
Eryu,
btrfs dev scan -d option is there for legacy reasons. The new method
is using libblkid to find btrfs devs.
David/Zach, is it time to remove -d option ? or mention deprecated.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:28:54AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:32:16AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
Hi,
Description of the problem:
mount btrfs with selinux context, then create a subvolume, the new
subvolume cannot be mounted, even with the same context.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:21:52PM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
· incremental send/receive works.
Yes.
· There is no support for hotspares (spare disks that automatically
replaces faulty disk).
Correct
· BtrFS with RAID1 is fairly stable.
From what I know.
· RAID 5/6 spreads all data
Thank you Hugo! Amazing. It almost work all the way,
According to some tests I did, echo 2 /proc/cpu/alignment does allow in
fact btrfs receive to work in most cases. For the tests, a x86_64 for
send, a armv5tel for receive and 2 subvolumes (one with just a few
data and binary files and the
42 matches
Mail list logo
