[PATCH] fs/btrfs: Fix build of ctree

2011-01-12 Thread Stefan Schmidt
CC [M] fs/btrfs/ctree.o In file included from fs/btrfs/ctree.c:21:0: fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1003:17: error: field 91super_kobj92 has incomplete type fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1074:17: error: field 91root_kobj92 has incomplete type make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ctree.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [fs/btrfs] Error 2 make:

Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

2011-01-12 Thread Dave Chinner
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:30:07PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff decision was made 13 years

Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

2011-01-12 Thread Dave Chinner
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote: The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was significant,

Re: [PATCH V3 1/6] btrfs: fix wrong data space statistics

2011-01-12 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 06:07:15PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: Josef has implemented mixed data/metadata chunks, we must add those chunks' space just like data chunks. Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com Thanks, Josef --- fs/btrfs/super.c |

Re: [PATCH V3 3/6] btrfs: fix wrong calculation of stripe size

2011-01-12 Thread Josef Bacik
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 06:07:24PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: There are two tiny problem: - One is When we check the chunk size is greater than the max chunk size or not, we should take mirrors into account, but the original code didn't. - The other is btrfs shouldn't use the size of the

Filesystem creation in degraded mode

2011-01-12 Thread Hugo Mills
I've had a go at determining exactly what happens when you create a filesystem without enough devices to meet the requested replication strategy: # mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/vdb # mount /dev/vdb /mnt # btrfs fi df /mnt Data: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 System, DUP: total=8.00MB,

'ioctl:: Inappropriate ioctl for device' when trying to shrink partition

2011-01-12 Thread Mikael Andersson
E.g. btrfsctl -r -4000m /dev/sda5 results in: ioctl:: Inappropriate ioctl for device Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 Kernel: 2.6.35-22-generic According to the Synaptic Package manager, the version of btrfs-tools is 0.19+20100601-3 Other information that can be of interest: - I started Ubuntu on a

Re: 'ioctl:: Inappropriate ioctl for device' when trying to shrink partition

2011-01-12 Thread Leonidas Spyropoulos
On 12 January 2011 18:45, Mikael Andersson mik...@develog.se wrote: E.g. btrfsctl -r -4000m /dev/sda5 Hey Mikael, btrfsctl is deprecated, you should use btrfs In the previous example: btrfs filesystem resize -4000m /dev/sda5 Check the help of btrfs And also good to download latest btrfs-progs

Re: Filesystem creation in degraded mode

2011-01-12 Thread Alan Chandler
On 12/01/11 14:02, Hugo Mills wrote: I've had a go at determining exactly what happens when you create a filesystem without enough devices to meet the requested replication strategy: Thanks - being new to this I haven't set up the infrastructure to try these tests - but am interested

[PATCH] Btrfs: don't warn if we get ENOSPC in btrfs_block_rsv_check

2011-01-12 Thread Josef Bacik
If we run low on space we could get a bunch of warnings out of btrfs_block_rsv_check, but this is mostly just called via the transaction code to see if we need to end the transaction, it expects to see failures, so let's not WARN and freak everybody out for no reason. Thanks, Signed-off-by: