Hi,
I found cow doesn't behave as expected in run_delalloc_nocow(). Now in
run_delalloc_now(), if it found a regular extent and the NODATACOW is
set, run_dealloc_now will cow the file range which is not as expected.
Also, if it find a regular extent and NODATACOW is not set(with
PREALLOC set), it
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:54:59AM -0500, Lee Trager wrote:
Is that just finishing btrfs_check_free_space? What would that involve?
I haven't done much kernel work but I could give it a try.
ENOSPC is kind of tricky, which is why it hasn't been done yet ;). Since btrfs
does delayed allocation
Hello everyone,
I've updated the unstable repos to 2.6.28-rc5. The standalone repo has
enough compat code that it will still compile on 2.6.27. So, if anyone
wants to work against 2.6.27:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable-standalone.git;a=summary
Hello everyone,
I've updated the btrfs git trees to 2.6.28-rc5 and tested against
linux-next.
We've knocked a bunch of things off the todo list since I last posted,
including compression (mount -o compress) and the ability to create
subvols and snapshots anywhere in the FS.
There are a small
2008/11/20 Liu Hui [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I found cow doesn't behave as expected in run_delalloc_nocow(). Now in
run_delalloc_now(), if it found a regular extent and the NODATACOW is
set, run_dealloc_now will cow the file range which is not as expected.
Also, if it find a regular extent and
Ok, this is the new patch.
--
Thanks Best Regards
Liu Hui
--
diff --git a/inode.c b/inode.c
index 2c77e09..5e3789f 100644
--- a/inode.c
+++ b/inode.c
@@ -1114,10 +1114,10 @@ static int run_delalloc_range(struct inode
*inode, struct page *locked_page,
if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATACOW)
I got this lockdep warning while running tiobench on a clean btrfs filesystem
with the latest code available (commit 2c41b36dd2f9fb5dee150f20c84895496e0642f2)
But it was a purely read-only workload: only root could write to the
filesystem and I was running tiobench as an user, which was spitting
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
I got this lockdep warning while running tiobench on a clean btrfs filesystem
with the latest code available (commit
2c41b36dd2f9fb5dee150f20c84895496e0642f2)
But it was a purely read-only workload: only root could write to the
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 21:47 +0800, Liu Hui wrote:
Ok, this is the new patch.
Thank you both, I've pushed this out.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hello,
This is the updated patch of the one I sent a few weeks ago. It fixes this
lockdep complaint by having a different mutex to gaurd caching the block group,
so you don't end up with this backwards dependancy. Thank you,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git
Shut up various sparse warnings about symbols that should be either
static or have their declarations in scope.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: btrfs-unstable/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
===
---
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: btrfs-unstable/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
===
--- btrfs-unstable.orig/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c2008-11-20 19:37:10.0
+0100
+++ btrfs-unstable/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c 2008-11-20
Provide a void __user *argp pointer so that we can avoid duplicating
the cast for various sub-command calls.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: btrfs-unstable/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
===
---
Cleans the code up a little and also avoids a sparse warning due to the
incorrect cast in the current version of the code.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: btrfs-unstable/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
===
---
Hello,
This adds the necessary disk format stuff for handling compatibility flags in
the future to handle disk format changes. We have a compat_flags,
compat_ro_flags and incompat_flags set for the super block. Compat flags will
be to hold the features that are compatible with older versions of
Hello,
This needs to be applied on top of my previous patches, but is needed for more
than just my new stuff. We're going to the wrong label when we have an error,
we try to stop the workers, but they are started below all of this code. This
fixes it so we go to the right error label and not
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 00:50 +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
Hi
I try to run btrfs (Linus's-git + btrfs-unstable) on sparc64:
On sparc64, you'll have to set the sectorsize to your page size. What
is the output from mkfs.btrfs?
-chris
device fsid 1f5369b18fa4bb4-8268533a4c733861 devid 1
2008/11/21 Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 00:50 +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
Hi
I try to run btrfs (Linus's-git + btrfs-unstable) on sparc64:
On sparc64, you'll have to set the sectorsize to your page size. What
is the output from mkfs.btrfs?
fs created label
2008/11/19 Yan Zheng [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
This patch adds btrfs image tool. The image tool is
a debugging tool that creates/restores btrfs metadump
image. Thank you,
Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gcc -Wp,-MMD,./.btrfs-image.o.d,-MT,btrfs-image.o -Wall
-fno-strict-aliasing
Is it reasonable to continue?
---
Fix many warnings as
warning: format '%Lu' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 2 has
type 'u64'
Also add loglevel for printk().
Signed-off-by: Alexander Beregalov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 25 ++---
Hi there,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Alexander Beregalov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it reasonable to continue?
---
Fix many warnings as
warning: format '%Lu' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 2
has type 'u64'
u64 is exactly that on any arch/gcc combination I
Hi chris,
This is just a reminder to tell you that I found the commit message in
git log, but the code has not been checked in yet.
2008/11/21 Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 21:47 +0800, Liu Hui wrote:
Ok, this is the new patch.
Thank you both, I've pushed this out.
22 matches
Mail list logo