Re: [PATCH 3/5] btrfs: raid56: Use correct stolen pages to calculate P/Q

At 03/18/2017 06:19 AM, Liu Bo wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:31:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 03/16/2017 01:36 PM, Liu Bo wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:20:21PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: In the following situation, scrub will calculate wrong parity to overwrite correct one: RAID5

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: introduce a separate mutex for caching_block_groups list

This sounds reasonable to me, I'll look at it more when I'm on the ground and can look at the code and see for sure. Thanks, Josef Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 19, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Alex Lyakas wrote: > > We have a commit_root_sem, which is a read-write semaphore

[PATCH RFC] btrfs: introduce a separate mutex for caching_block_groups list

We have a commit_root_sem, which is a read-write semaphore that protects the commit roots. But it is also used to protect the list of caching block groups. As a result, while doing "slow" caching, the following issue is seen: Some of the caching threads are scanning the extent tree with

[no subject]

Hi, sorry if this is a newbie question. I am newbie. In my kernel driver, I get device id by converting struct inode struct to btrfs_inode, I use the code: struct btrfs_inode *btrfsInode; btrfsInode = BTRFS_I(inode); I usually download kernel-headers rpm package, this is not enough. it fails to