On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:15:59AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:06:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:00:29PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > Hi Chris and other btrfs folks,
> > >
> > > btrfs_mkdir() calls d_i
Hi Chris and other btrfs folks,
btrfs_mkdir() calls d_instantiate() before unlock_new_inode(), which is wrong
because it exposes the inode to lookups before it's been fully initialized.
Most filesystems get it right, but f2fs and btrfs don't. I sent a f2fs patch
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote:
>
> >>The memory reported is the amount of memory the compressor requests.
> >>
> >>|
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:57:01AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> Also didn't think to mention this, but I could see the max level
> being very popular for use with SquashFS root filesystems used in
> LiveCD's. Currently, they have to decide between read performance
> and image size, while
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 07:32:18AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-08-10 04:30, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote:
> >>
> >>It can compress at speeds approaching lz4, and quality approaching lzma.
&g
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote:
>
> It can compress at speeds approaching lz4, and quality approaching lzma.
Well, for a very loose definition of "approaching", and certainly not at the
same time. I doubt there's a use case for using the highest compression levels
Hi,
For at least a few kernel versions now I've been receiving I/O errors in a KVM
guest when testing ext4 with kvm-xfstests on a particular computer. I've
tracked this down to the host filesystem which is BTRFS, and is sometimes
returning EEXIST to pwrite() calls made by QEMU to write to the
> > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:17:46PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > >> 1.) Privacy implications. Say the filesystem is being shared between
> > >> multiple
> > >> users, and one user unpacks foo.tar.gz into their home directory,
> >
Hi Elena,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:55:29AM +, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> >
> > At the very least, what is there now could probably be made about twice as
> > fast
> > by removing the checks that don't actually help mitigate refcount overflow
> > bugs,
> > specifically all the checks in
Hi Elena,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:10:16PM +, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
>
> > All the objections from DaveM on the amount of cycles spent on the
> > new refcount_t apply to the block layer fast path operations as well.
>
> Ok, could you please indicate the correct way to measure the impact
When using btrfs and a kernel with lockdep enabled (4.9-rc7, but this easily
could have been there for a while) I got the following lockdep warning:
[ 37.796703] =
[ 37.796773] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 37.796854] 4.9.0-rc7
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:46PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
> This patchset adds btrfs encryption support.
>
Hi Anand,
I'm part of a team that will be maintaining and improving ext4 encryption.
Because f2fs now shares much of the code, it will benefit from the ext4
encryption work too. It
Hello,
The following warning has been triggering for me since about v4.6-rc3:
WARN_ON(BTRFS_I(inode)->csum_bytes);
On one machine the warning has occurred 657 times since v4.6-rc5. On another it
has occurred 3 times since v4.6-rc3. Both are now on v4.6-rc7, where I have
still observed
A few comments:
> if (!(file_in->f_mode & FMODE_READ) ||
> !(file_out->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) ||
> (file_out->f_flags & O_APPEND) ||
> !file_out->f_op)
> return -EBADF;
Isn't 'f_op' always non-NULL?
If the destination file cannot be append-only,
14 matches
Mail list logo
