On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:42:07PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
There will be savings in the future, however -- when I add Li's
suggestion for tracking the number of bytes (in the block groups as a
whole, and in terms of useful data stored), plus the vaddr of the
last-moved block group, the
Hi,
I've noticed that Arne's scrub patches add scrub variables directly
into the fs_info structure, while you have a separate struct.
I was wondering whether it would be better to put items of
btrfs_balance_info to fs_info too, balance state is a global info.
Although fs_info is a huge
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:12:32PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that Arne's scrub patches add scrub variables directly
into the fs_info structure, while you have a separate struct.
Chris (I think -- might have been Josef) suggested the use of a
struct, back when I was first
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 07:34:00AM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 10.04.11:
This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 10.04.11:
This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.
Just for curiosity:
If I remember correct then btrfs device delete