[PATCH] Btrfs: ensure btrfs_prev_leaf doesn't miss 1 item

2014-06-09 Thread Filipe David Borba Manana
We might have had an item with the previous key in the tree right before we released our path. And after we released our path, that item might have been pushed to the first slot (0) of the leaf we were holding due to a tree balance. Alternatively, an item with the previous key can exist as the

Re: [PATCH] mount: add btrfs to mount.8

2014-06-09 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 6/7/14, 8:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 6/6/14, 5:03 AM, Karel Zak wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:44:28AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: I personally have no problem to maintain information about arbitrary FS in mount.8, the

Re: [PATCH] mount: add btrfs to mount.8

2014-06-09 Thread Karel Zak
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 06:41:50AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 6/6/14, 5:03 AM, Karel Zak wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:44:28AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: I personally have no problem to maintain information about

re: Btrfs: split up __extent_writepage to lower stack usage

2014-06-09 Thread Dan Carpenter
Hello Chris Mason, The patch 263524b4ac6b: Btrfs: split up __extent_writepage to lower stack usage from May 21, 2014, leads to the following static checker warning: fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4071 try_release_extent_state() warn: use 'mask' here instead of GFP_XXX?

Re: Btrfs: split up __extent_writepage to lower stack usage

2014-06-09 Thread Chris Mason
On 06/09/2014 10:40 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: Hello Chris Mason, The patch 263524b4ac6b: Btrfs: split up __extent_writepage to lower stack usage from May 21, 2014, leads to the following static checker warning: fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4071 try_release_extent_state() warn: use

btrfs: hang on boot due to tests

2014-06-09 Thread Sasha Levin
Hi all, It seems that some recent changes to btrfs tests make it hang during boot: [ 49.730033] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#34 stuck for 23s! [swapper/0:1] [ 49.730033] Modules linked in: [ 49.730033] hardirqs last enabled at (6389143): restore_args

Re: btrfs: hang on boot due to tests

2014-06-09 Thread Chris Mason
On 06/09/2014 11:16 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: Hi all, It seems that some recent changes to btrfs tests make it hang during boot: [ 49.730033] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#34 stuck for 23s! [swapper/0:1] [ 49.730033] Modules linked in: [ 49.730033] hardirqs last enabled at

Re: btrfs: hang on boot due to tests

2014-06-09 Thread Sasha Levin
On 06/09/2014 11:59 AM, Chris Mason wrote: On 06/09/2014 11:16 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: Hi all, It seems that some recent changes to btrfs tests make it hang during boot: [ 49.730033] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#34 stuck for 23s! [swapper/0:1] [ 49.730033] Modules

btrfs balance crash BUG ON fs/btrfs/relocation.c:1062 or RIP build_backref_tree+0x9fc/0xcc4

2014-06-09 Thread Marc MERLIN
I did a balance on a system that had 3.11 (yes, I know, it's old). It hung. So, I rebooted with 3.13, and it failed in fs/btrfs/relocation Problem #1: I cannot stop the relocation. It starts on its own as soon as I mount the FS, and I can't stop it. Is there a bug to fix that? Problem #2: I

Re: btrfs balance crash BUG ON fs/btrfs/relocation.c:1062 or RIP build_backref_tree+0x9fc/0xcc4

2014-06-09 Thread Russell Coker
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:40:07 Marc MERLIN wrote: I did a balance on a system that had 3.11 (yes, I know, it's old). It hung. So, I rebooted with 3.13, and it failed in fs/btrfs/relocation Problem #1: I cannot stop the relocation. It starts on its own as soon as I mount the FS, and I can't stop

Re: [PATCH V3] Btrfs: device_list_add() should not update list when mounted

2014-06-09 Thread Qu Wenruo
Original Message Subject: [PATCH V3] Btrfs: device_list_add() should not update list when mounted From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Date: 2014年06月06日 11:26 (looks like there was some sendmail problem I don't see this in the btrfs list,

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for remount with thread_pool resized

2014-06-09 Thread Dave Chinner
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 04:52:51PM +0800, Xing Gu wrote: Regression test for resizing 'thread_pool' when remount the fs. Ping for btrfs test reviewers - is this test useful at all? Signed-off-by: Xing Gu gux.f...@cn.fujitsu.com --- tests/btrfs/055 | 55

Re: [PATCH v5] xfstests: add test for btrfs cloning with file holes

2014-06-09 Thread Dave Chinner
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: Regression test for the btrfs ioctl clone operation when the source range contains hole(s) and the FS has the NO_HOLES feature enabled (file holes don't need file extent items in the btree to represent them). This

Re: [PATCH V3] Btrfs: device_list_add() should not update list when mounted

2014-06-09 Thread Anand Jain
On 10/06/14 09:25, Qu Wenruo wrote: Original Message Subject: [PATCH V3] Btrfs: device_list_add() should not update list when mounted From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Date: 2014年06月06日 11:26 (looks like there was some sendmail problem I

Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add test for btrfs clone + fsync durability

2014-06-09 Thread Dave Chinner
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:48:52AM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: Regression test for btrfs ioctl clone operation + fsync + log recovery. The issue was that doing an fsync after cloning into a file didn't gave any persistence guarantees as it should. What happened was that the in

Re: btrfs balance crash BUG ON fs/btrfs/relocation.c:1062 or RIP build_backref_tree+0x9fc/0xcc4

2014-06-09 Thread Marc MERLIN
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:32:33AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:40:07 Marc MERLIN wrote: I did a balance on a system that had 3.11 (yes, I know, it's old). It hung. So, I rebooted with 3.13, and it failed in fs/btrfs/relocation Problem #1: I cannot stop the