On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 05:22:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Filipe Manana wrote on 2015/07/27 09:26 +0100:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
Hi Qu,
Sorry for the late reply after it is already merged,
but I'm a little concerned
Hi Filipe,
Sorry for the late reply after it is already merged,
but I'm a little concerned about the extra loop to find the first inc
delayed ref.
It may take some extra time when there are a lot of delayed refs.
What about allowing deleting the extent item at dec delayed ref time and
then
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
Hi Qu,
Sorry for the late reply after it is already merged,
but I'm a little concerned about the extra loop to find the first inc
delayed ref.
It may take some extra time when there are a lot of delayed
Filipe Manana wrote on 2015/07/27 09:26 +0100:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
Hi Qu,
Sorry for the late reply after it is already merged,
but I'm a little concerned about the extra loop to find the first inc
delayed ref.
It may take
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
When we have an extent that got N references removed and N new references
added in the same transaction, we must run the insertion of the references
first because otherwise the last removed reference will remove the extent
item from the extent tree, resulting
wrote on 2015/07/09 15:50 +0100:
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
When we have an extent that got N references removed and N new references
added in the same transaction, we must run the insertion of the references
first because otherwise the last removed reference will remove the
