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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:44:55AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I'm convinced the current series is OK, only real life will tell us > > > whether > > > we missed something or not ;) > > > > I would like to extend the changelog of "jbd2: mark the transaction > > context with the scope

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

On 01/25/2017 08:06 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: 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. Thanks Omar, I've got this queued on top of Dave's pull. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

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: > Would you please try lowmem_tests branch of my repo? >  > That branch contains a special debug output for the case you  > encountered, which should help to debug the case. > pecial debug output for the case you encountered, which Here the

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: script to verify init-csum-tree

Corrupt csum entry of a file and re-create csum tree using --init-csum Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G --- .../fsck-tests/025-verify-init-csum-option/test.sh | 38 ++ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) create mode 100755

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

I don’t think I’m supposed to be on this thread – please move me to bcc! ☺ -- caitlyn mason Facebook | University Programs M: (508) 963-6209 E: caitm...@fb.com facebook.com/careers On 1/26/17, 9:28 AM, "David Sterba" wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:06:18AM

Re: [btrfs/rt] lockdep false positive

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 18:09 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-01-25 19:29:49 [+0100], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 18:02 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > [ 341.960794]CPU0 > > > > [ 341.960795] > > > > [ 341.960795]

Re: [btrfs/rt] lockdep false positive

On 2017-01-25 19:29:49 [+0100], Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 18:02 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > [ 341.960794]CPU0 > > > [ 341.960795] > > > [ 341.960795] lock(btrfs-tree-00); > > > [ 341.960795] lock(btrfs-tree-00); > > > [

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe 1.1.0

Yeah, ok, can you create an account on my souce tracker and create an issue for this please? https://gitlab.wellbehavedsoftware.com/well-behaved-software/btrfs-dedupe I am fairly sure I can fix this without too much difficulty. ;-) James On 26/01/17 18:16, Robert Krig wrote: I've tried your

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:06:18AM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: cleanup unused cached_state in __extent_writepage_io

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:15:54PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > @cached_state is no more required in __extent_writepage_io, also remove the > goto label. > > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo Reviewed-by: David Sterba -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:48:42AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > 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

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:06:38PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > 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

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:06:39PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > 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

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:06:40PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > Subvolume directory inodes can't have ACLs. > > Cc: # 4.9.x > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval Reviewed-by: David Sterba -- To

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe 1.1.0

I've tried your binaries, which also seem to work fine on Debian Stretch. (At least using the latest ubuntu xenial binary). I've only run into one little issue, btrfs-dedupe will abort with "Serialization error: invalid value: Path contains invalid UTF-8 characters at line 0 column 0" if I run it

Re: btrfs recovery

>It's on line 248 of the paste: > > 246. key (5547032576 EXTENT_ITEM 204800) block 596426752 (36403) gen 20441 > 247. key (5561905152 EXTENT_ITEM 184320) block 596443136 (36404) gen 20441 > 248. key (15606380089319694336 UNKNOWN.76 303104) block 596459520 (36405) > gen 20441 > 249.

Re: btrfs recovery

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:36:55AM +0100, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: > Hi and thanks for the quick reply! > > Am 26.01.2017 um 10:25 schrieb Hugo Mills: > >Can you post the output of "btrfs-debug-tree -b 35028992 > > /dev/sdb1", specifically the 5 or so entries around item 243. It is > > quite

Re: btrfs send | receive: corrupted stack end detected inside scheduler

On 01/26/2017 09:08 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > Hello, > > during a "btrfs send | btrfs receive" from a raid1 to a single USB > harddrive the kernel oopsed with: > > [ 9504.261077] Kernel panic - not syncing: corrupted stack end detected > inside scheduler > [ 9504.261077] > [ 9504.270410]

Re: btrfs recovery

Hi and thanks for the quick reply! Am 26.01.2017 um 10:25 schrieb Hugo Mills: >Can you post the output of "btrfs-debug-tree -b 35028992 > /dev/sdb1", specifically the 5 or so entries around item 243. It is > quite likely that you have bad RAM, and the output will help confirm > that. >

Re: btrfs recovery

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: > Hi, > > I have just encountered on mount of one of my filesystems (after a clean > reboot...): > [ 495.303313] BTRFS critical (device sdb1): corrupt node, bad key order: > block=35028992, root=1, slot=243 > [ 495.315642]

btrfs recovery

Hi, I have just encountered on mount of one of my filesystems (after a clean reboot...): [ 495.303313] BTRFS critical (device sdb1): corrupt node, bad key order: block=35028992, root=1, slot=243 [ 495.315642] BTRFS critical (device sdb1): corrupt node, bad key order: block=35028992,

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:11:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We accidentally deleted a new line in commit 0921910aa6fe ("btrfs: Make > btrfs_log_inode take btrfs_inode") Thanks, I've folded the change to the patch that introduced it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

btrfs send | receive: corrupted stack end detected inside scheduler

Hello, during a "btrfs send | btrfs receive" from a raid1 to a single USB harddrive the kernel oopsed with: [ 9504.261077] Kernel panic - not syncing: corrupted stack end detected inside scheduler [ 9504.261077] [ 9504.270410] CPU: 0 PID: 4016 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 4.8.0-2-armmp #1 Debian

Re: btrfs rescue chunk-recover segfaults

Am 24.01.2017 um 11:05 schrieb Duncan: Simon Waid posted on Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:42:28 +0100 as excerpted: I have a btrfs raid5 array that has become unmountable. [As a list regular and btrfs user myself, not a dev, but I try to help with replies where I can in ordered to allow the devs and