Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Thu 19-01-17 10:44:05, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 19-01-17 10:22:36, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 19-01-17 09:39:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > But before going to play with that I am

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Lowmem mode fsck fixes with fsck-tests framework update

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:10 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > In fact, the result without patches is not really needed for current > stage. > > Feel free to skip them until the patched ones passed. > Which should save you some time. Well the idea is, that if I do further writes in the meantime (by

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Lowmem mode fsck fixes with fsck-tests framework update

Thanks for your patient and the test! At 01/26/2017 10:50 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 12:16 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs/tree/lowmem_fixes Just finished trying your new patches. Same game as last time, applied to 4.9, no RW

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Lowmem mode fsck fixes with fsck-tests framework update

On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 12:16 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs/tree/lowmem_fixes Just finished trying your new patches. Same game as last time, applied to 4.9, no RW mount between the runs. btrfs-progs v4.9 WITHOUT patch: *** # btrfs

[PATCH] Btrfs: cleanup unused cached_state in __extent_writepage_io

@cached_state is no more required in __extent_writepage_io, also remove the goto label. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo --- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 9 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:06:36PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > When you snapshot a subvolume containing a subvolume, you get a > placeholder read-only directory where the subvolume would be. These > directory inodes have ->i_ops set to

[PATCH v2 1/3] Btrfs: remove old tree_root case in btrfs_read_locked_inode()

From: Omar Sandoval As Jeff explained in c2951f32d36c ("btrfs: remove old tree_root dirent processing in btrfs_real_readdir()"), supporting this old format is no longer necessary since the Btrfs magic number has been updated since we changed to the current format. There are other

[PATCH v2 3/3] Btrfs: remove ->{get,set}_acl() from btrfs_dir_ro_inode_operations

From: Omar Sandoval Subvolume directory inodes can't have ACLs. Cc: # 4.9.x Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index

[PATCH v2 2/3] Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories

From: Omar Sandoval When you snapshot a subvolume containing a subvolume, you get a placeholder directory where the subvolume would be. These directory inodes have ->i_ops set to btrfs_dir_ro_inode_operations. Previously, these i_ops didn't include the xattr operation callbacks.

[PATCH v2 0/3] Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories

From: Omar Sandoval This series is based on v4.10-rc4. It should probably go in for v4.10 and to stable for v4.9.x. Changes from v1: - Added patch 1 to remove an obsolete place where we use btrfs_dir_ro_inode_operations since the fix in patch 2 concerns

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: allow unlink to exceed subvolume quota

At 01/25/2017 10:50 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: Once a qgroup limit is exceeded, it's impossible to restore normal operation to the subvolume without modifying the limit or removing the subvolume. This is a surprising situation for many users used to the typical workflow with quotas on other file

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

At 01/25/2017 06:24 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:30:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 01/25/2017 05:20 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: From: Omar Sandoval This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:28:21PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Omar, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > When you snapshot a subvolume containing a subvolume, you get a > > placeholder read-only

Re: read-only fs, kernel 4.9.0, fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1170 __btrfs_run_delayed_items,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 03:55:33PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:53:06PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On

Re: read-only fs, kernel 4.9.0, fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1170 __btrfs_run_delayed_items,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 03:55:33PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:53:06PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > >> > >> >

Re: read-only fs, kernel 4.9.0, fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1170 __btrfs_run_delayed_items,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:53:06PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> >> > Got this to repro after installing systemd-container. It's happening on

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic: splitted large dio write could trigger assertion on btrfs

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:30:59PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:22:06PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > On btrfs, if a large dio write (>=128MB) got splitted, the > > outstanding_extents > > assertion would complain. Note that CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT is required. > > > > Regression

[PATCH v2] fstests: generic: splitted large dio write could trigger assertion on btrfs

On btrfs, if a large dio write (>=128MB) got splitted, the outstanding_extents assertion would complain. Note that CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT is required. Regression test for Btrfs: adjust outstanding_extents counter properly when dio write is split Signed-off-by: Liu Bo ---

Re: Hard crash on 4.9.5

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:03:55PM -0500, Matt McKinnon wrote: > Wondering what to do about this error which says 'reboot needed'. Has > happened a three times in the past week: > Well, I don't think btrfs's logic here is wrong, the following stack shows that a nfs client has sent a second

Re: [RFC] btrfs-progs: btrfs-corrupt-block refactor

Hi Qu, I think it will be a good idea to have corruption log. It should take --log or --verbose btrfs-corrupt-block --log=/path/to/logfile it should record original state of target object before the corruption. For ex: when we try to corrupt nlink field of /data/file.txt Log should have entries

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/047: check btrfs-convert with extent and non-extent source

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:39:53PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 07:17:02AM +0530, Lakshmipathi.G wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G > > Need detailed test description in commit log too. Okay will include them. > > > Trailing whitespace in

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: missing csum test script

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:06:27PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > It's not clear from the test what's the purpose. There's one corrupted > csum but the whole csum tree rebuild option is used. This is a pretty > basic check that the --init-csum-tree works, so it should be mentioned > somewhere in the

Re: [PATCH] btfs-progs: fsck-tests: corrupt nlink value test

> Both approaches have their pros and cons so I'll accept both. The > functionality provided by the corrupt block utility can be used, any > changes to the command line UI will be also applied to the test scripts. okay, I'll continue mixing both approaches. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send

Potential BTRFS receive bug

Hello, In evaluating btrfs for my use case, I stumbled on what appears to be a bug. Originally, I created two lvm logical volumes on the same physical device each with a btrfs file system. I then cloned the linux kernel into the first one, then attempted to do a btrfs send/receive to "backup"

[PATCH v2] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

From: Omar Sandoval This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories". On v4.9, it will result in an aborted transaction. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval --- Changes since v1:

Re: Hard crash on 4.9.5

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:27:22PM +0100, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 01/23/2017 09:03 PM, Matt McKinnon wrote: > > Wondering what to do about this error which says 'reboot needed'. Has > > happened a three times in the past week: > > > > Jan 23 14:16:17 my_machine kernel: [ 2568.595648]

Re: NULL pointer dereference in btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space

On 01/25/2017 04:43 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31:32AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm using debian's latest 4.9 Kernel on a 32bit armhf SMP board. The >> filesystem is in raid1 mode using two harddrives. After the system >> crashed (for yet unknown reason)

Re: NULL pointer dereference in btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31:32AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > Hello, > > I'm using debian's latest 4.9 Kernel on a 32bit armhf SMP board. The > filesystem is in raid1 mode using two harddrives. After the system > crashed (for yet unknown reason) the mounting of the raid1 failed > with the

[patch] btrfs: white space cleanup in btrfs_log_inode()

We accidentally deleted a new line in commit 0921910aa6fe ("btrfs: Make btrfs_log_inode take btrfs_inode") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c index f1dc36a181db..010cf7685677 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c +++

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix wrong argument for btrfs_lookup_ordered_range

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:49:09PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 03:58:51 PM Liu Bo wrote: > > Commit "d0b7da88 Btrfs: btrfs_page_mkwrite: Reserve space in sectorsized > > units" > > did this, but btrfs_lookup_ordered_range expects a 'length' rather than a > >

[PATCH] btrfs: allow unlink to exceed subvolume quota

Once a qgroup limit is exceeded, it's impossible to restore normal operation to the subvolume without modifying the limit or removing the subvolume. This is a surprising situation for many users used to the typical workflow with quotas on other file systems where it's possible to remove files

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories

Omar, On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > When you snapshot a subvolume containing a subvolume, you get a > placeholder read-only directory where the subvolume would be. These > directory inodes have ->i_ops set to

Btrfs progs pre-release 4.9.1-rc1

Hi, a pre-release has been tagged, fixes that have queued so far. * check: * use correct inode number for lost+found files * lowmem mode: fix false alert on dropped leaf * size reports: negative numbers might appear in size reports during device deletes (previously in EiB units) * mkfs:

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:30:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 01/25/2017 05:20 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > > > This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

On 01/25/17 17:30, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 01/25/2017 05:20 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: From: Omar Sandoval This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories". On v4.9, it will

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

one below. On 01/25/17 14:50, Omar Sandoval wrote: From: Omar Sandoval This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories". On v4.9, it will result in an aborted transaction. Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval ---

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

At 01/25/2017 05:20 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: From: Omar Sandoval This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on subvolume directories". On v4.9, it will result in an aborted transaction.

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on > subvolume directories". On v4.9, it will result in an aborted > transaction. > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix wrong argument for btrfs_lookup_ordered_range

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 03:58:51 PM Liu Bo wrote: > Commit "d0b7da88 Btrfs: btrfs_page_mkwrite: Reserve space in sectorsized > units" > did this, but btrfs_lookup_ordered_range expects a 'length' rather than a > 'page_end'. > > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo > --- > Is this a