Hello again,
(this is a status update)
from what I begin to understand, the real problem is not the transid,
which is a kind of warning, but the failed assertion on tree_root,
meaning that the read_tree_block call at disk-io.nc:736 fails.
The GDB backtrace is the following :
Reading symbols
I happened to pass swap partition as root partition in cmdline,
then kernel panic and tell me about Cannot open root device.
It is not correct, in fact it is a fs type mismatch instead of 'no device'.
Eventually I found btrfs mounting failed with -EIO, it should be -EINVAL.
The logic in
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:29 AM, cwillu cwi...@cwillu.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Schretter schr...@math.duke.edu
wrote:
I have a 10TB btrfs filesystem over iSCSI that is currently unmountable. I'm
currently running Fedora 13 with a recent Fedora 14 kernel
In addition to the questions below, if anyone has a chance could you advise on
why my destination drive has more data than the source after this command:
# rsync --hard-links --delete --inplace --archive --numeric-ids /media/disk/*
/home
sending incremental file list
sent 658660 bytes
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Thomas Bellman bell...@nsc.liu.se wrote:
What is the visibility of the changes for other processes supposed
to be in the meantime? I.e., if things happen in this order:
Should be atomic too, at close time.
1. Process A does fda = open(foo.txt,
On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 05:25:19AM -0800, Carl Cook wrote:
In addition to the questions below, if anyone has a chance could you
advise on why my destination drive has more data than the source after
this command:
# rsync --hard-links --delete --inplace --archive --numeric-ids /media/disk/*
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:45:21 +0100 (CET), Jesper Juhl j...@chaosbits.net
wrote:
It seems to me that we leak the memory allocated to 'value' in
btrfs_get_acl() if the call to posix_acl_from_xattr() fails.
Here's a patch that attempts to
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Thomas Bellman bell...@nsc.liu.se wrote:
What is the visibility of the changes for other processes supposed
to be in the meantime? I.e., if things happen in this order:
Should be atomic too, at close time.
1. Process A does fda =
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've got the same problem. That is, I have a 2.6.35 btrfs volume that
segfaults and causes a kernel oops upon attempts to mount it. There is
some data on there that was not covered by the daily backup. Though it
is not the end of the world, I'd like
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carl Cook cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
In addition to the questions below, if anyone has a chance could you advise
on why my destination drive has more data than the source after this command:
# rsync --hard-links --delete --inplace --archive --numeric-ids
10 matches
Mail list logo