Re: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000008

2010-01-21 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:07:10AM +0100, Sander wrote: [26678.568532] [c026c294] (btrfs_get_acl+0x60/0x250) from [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) [26678.577802] [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) from [c019bb20] (generic_getxattr+0x78/0x7c) [26678.587243] [c019bb20]

Re: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000008

2010-01-21 Thread Sander
Hello Tomasz, Tomasz Torcz wrote (ao): On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:07:10AM +0100, Sander wrote: [26678.568532] [c026c294] (btrfs_get_acl+0x60/0x250) from [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) [26678.577802] [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) from [c019bb20]

Re: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000008

2010-01-21 Thread Liuwenyi
于 2010-1-21 16:57, Sander 写道: Hello Tomasz, Tomasz Torcz wrote (ao): On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:07:10AM +0100, Sander wrote: [26678.568532] [c026c294] (btrfs_get_acl+0x60/0x250) from [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) [26678.577802] [c026c494]

Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

2010-01-21 Thread Jim Faulkner
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote: Please let me know if this improves your ratios It most certainly does! It also greatly reduced the time required to copy the data to my (not very fast) disk. All my testing was done on 2.6.32.4. The line numbers in your patch were a little off for

Re: Ubuntu and btrfs root fs

2010-01-21 Thread Goffredo Baroncelli
On Thursday 21 January 2010, you (Thomas Kupper) wrote: Hello Goffredo, I thought maybe email is a more practial way to ask you about it. But if there's a better place in your opinion (mailling list?) let me know. I cc'ed the btrfs-mailing list. [speaking about a btrfs setup for a root

Re: removing a snapshot that is outside the subvolume directory fails, sorta

2010-01-21 Thread Goffredo Baroncelli
On Thursday 21 January 2010, Brian Neu wrote: Well, it fails the way that I'm trying to do it. kernel:2.6.31.9-174.fc12.x86_64 btrfs-progs: btrfs-progs-0.19-9.fc12.x86_64 On a new filesystem: $ cd /mnt/btrfs1 $ btrfsctl -S subvol1 . operation complete Btrfs Btrfs v0.19

[RFC] Move all btrfs command to only one command

2010-01-21 Thread Goffredo Baroncelli
Hi all this RFC is about unify all btrfs command (btrfsctl, btrfs-show, btrfs-tune.. ) in only one called btrfs (or whatever we want). Today btrfsctl needs a bit of care because * the help is basically wrong [1] * the return codes are incoherent [2] * the syntax of the command are very

Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

2010-01-21 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jim Faulkner jfaul...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote: Please let me know if this improves your ratios It most certainly does!  It also greatly reduced the time required to copy the data to my (not very fast) disk.  All my testing

Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

2010-01-21 Thread Chris Mason
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0500, Jim Faulkner wrote: delta-9 ~ # mount -o noatime,noacl,compress-force /dev/sdi /var/news/mysql delta-9 ~ # time cp -a /nfs/media/tmp/btrfs-mysql-test /var/news/mysql/ real14m45.742s user0m0.547s sys 1m30.551s delta-9 ~ # df -h

Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

2010-01-21 Thread Chris Mason
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 03:04:56PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jim Faulkner jfaul...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote: Please let me know if this improves your ratios It most certainly does!  It also greatly reduced the time

Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

2010-01-21 Thread Jim Faulkner
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote: Either way, thanks for testing this out. Do you happen to remember how small the file becomes when you just plain gzip it? gzipping it I end up with an 11 GB file. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of

Re: Ubuntu and btrfs root fs

2010-01-21 Thread Thomas Kupper
Hi Goffredo, On 21 Jan 2010, at 19:35, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On Thursday 21 January 2010, you (Thomas Kupper) wrote: Hello Goffredo, I thought maybe email is a more practial way to ask you about it. But if there's a better place in your opinion (mailling list?) let me know. I

mount command not honoring rootflags passed

2010-01-21 Thread Thomas Kupper
Using btrfs as the root filesystem on my Ubuntu 9.10 powered laptop I discoverd that mount is not showing the actual passed rootflags= but shows what is put in the /etc/fstab. First of all, I'm not sure if that is an intended behavior and if not, if it's a problem of mount or btrfs. Example:

Re: [RFC] Move all btrfs command to only one command

2010-01-21 Thread TARUISI Hiroaki
Hi Goffredo, It sounds good for me though detailed points need more discussion. btrfs-progs seems unkind for operator as you mentioned, and many features will be implemented to btrfsctl from now, it's good that we arrange and unify btrfs-progs now. As for me, plain keywords(delete,defrag...) as

Re: [RFC] Move all btrfs command to only one command

2010-01-21 Thread Michael Niederle
$ btrfs Usage: btrfs clone|-c source [dest/]name Clone the subvolume source with the name name in the dest directory.

[PATCH -v2] btrfs: Use correct values when updating inode i_size on fallocate

2010-01-21 Thread Aneesh Kumar K.V
Even though we allocate more, we should be updating inode i_size as per the arguments passed Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- Changes from V1: We should update i_size only if actual_len and cur_offset are both larger than i_size. Otherwise if actual_len is