On 14.03.2011 00:50, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 03:50:42PM +0100, Arne Jansen wrote:
This is the main scrub code.
+ int nstripes;
It should be u64 nstripes. A few lines below you assign the stripe
length, it is a 64 bit quantity, also do_div() expects a 64 bit
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
WTF? Why does append mode have any effect on whether we can punch
holes in a file or not? There's no justification for adding this in
the commit message. Why is it even in a patch that is for checking
immutable inodes? What is the
2011/3/14 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
WTF? Why does append mode have any effect on whether we can punch
holes in a file or not? There's no justification for adding this in
the commit message. Why is it even in a patch
The option to give the number of bytes to read is -b, not -s. Updated
usage accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net
---
btrfs-map-logical.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/btrfs-map-logical.c b/btrfs-map-logical.c
index aa4b5b5..f4695aa
Btrfs can span multiple devices, so sb-s_bdev will not always point to the
block device that we are looking to freeze. This isn't a huge issue since the
only thing that freezes per-bdev is device-mapper, but if btrfs spans multiple
dm devices then we could run into corruption issues as we could
This patch implements the super op contains_bdev. We just loop through the
fs_devices on this super looking for the block device that was requested.
Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
---
fs/btrfs/super.c | 21 +
1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0
I think there's a better and more efficient way to archive this.
We already have a bd_super field in struct block_device. Just
generalize it, and use it from the freeze code instead of doing the
get_active_super loop.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:31:26PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I think there's a better and more efficient way to archive this.
We already have a bd_super field in struct block_device. Just
generalize it, and use it from the freeze code instead of doing the
get_active_super loop.
Hi Chris, et. al,
I've recently come across cppcheck (static analyser for C code)
and ran it on the current btrfs directory from Linus's repo and
it's reported the following potential issues:
linux-2.6$ cppcheck -q fs/btrfs/
[fs/btrfs/compression.c:343]: (error) Data is allocated but not
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:32:13AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
Hi Chris, et. al,
I've recently come across cppcheck (static analyser for C code)
and ran it on the current btrfs directory from Linus's repo and
it's reported the following potential issues:
linux-2.6$ cppcheck -q fs/btrfs/
Hi,
i'm having a problem with a damaged btrfs after power loss. When i try
to mount the fs mount either segfaults (trace at bottom) or hangs in
D state together with [btrfs-transacti]. I tried to btrfsck the
filesystem multiple times. It didn't help. Btrfs tools are from todays
git. The fs got
11 matches
Mail list logo
