Hi all,
This patch series tries to remove a sanity check in fallocate from specific
filesystems because vfs has already checked it.
I am not very familiar with why we need to do this duplicated check. Please let
me know if I miss something.
Regards,
From: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
Remove a sanity check from btrfs_fallocate because vfs has already checked it.
Reported-by: Guo Chao y...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
---
fs/btrfs/file.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git
From: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
Remove a sanity check from ocfs2_fallocate because vfs has already checked it.
Reported-by: Guo Chao y...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
---
fs/ocfs2/file.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
From: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
Remove a sanity check from ext4_fallocate because vfs has already checked it.
Reported-by: Guo Chao y...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git
From: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
Remove a sanity check from xfs_file_fallocate because vfs has already checked
it.
Reported-by: Guo Chao y...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu wenqing...@taobao.com
---
fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:29:41PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
Hi all,
This patch series tries to remove a sanity check in fallocate from specific
filesystems because vfs has already checked it.
I am not very familiar with why we need to do this duplicated check. Please
let
me know if I
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:14:53AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:29:41PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
Hi all,
This patch series tries to remove a sanity check in fallocate from specific
filesystems because vfs has already checked it.
I am not very familiar
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:54:35PM +0800, Ross Moore wrote:
Hi,
Any update on this before I wipe the disks and start again?
Hi Ross,
Sorry but I failed to reproduce it locally, although I've tried various
disk operations like balance, dev add/del etc...
So have you also tried the latest btrfs
I found a race condition in the way scrub interacts with btrfs workers:
Please carefully distinguish workers as struct btrfs_workers from worker as
struct btrfs_worker_thread.
Process A: umount
Process B: scrub-workers
Process C: genwork-worker
A: close_ctree()
A:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:25:02PM +0800, Ross Moore wrote:
Strange. Does that imply a problem with disks or disk cables physically?
Our just the data rather than the metadata?
It seems to be a kernel bug since another user also reported it sometime ago.
I've compiled the latest btrfs-tools
I wanted to know if any one else is writing a BTRFS gui other than
the writers of BTRFS-GUI (http://carfax.org.uk/btrfs-gui) who haven't
updated svn sense 2009 I think. Is there any documentation on
communicating with /dev/btrfs-controle ? a command list? I've looked
at the source of btrfs.c
The delayed reference allocation is in the fast path of the IO, so use slabs
to improve the speed of the allocation.
And besides that, it can do check for leaked objects when the module is removed.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c | 74
12 matches
Mail list logo
