On 05.06.2013 04:09, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
Or while_list_drain?
I'm fine with while_list_drain, although a name starting with list_
like all other list macros would be nice. How about just list_drain?
The next question is where to put it in the
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:23:18 +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
[...]
P.S: should I open a bugzilla for this?
Yes.
Otherwise the bug report gets lost.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 09:59:05PM -0600, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi-
I'm pretty reliably triggering the following bug after powercycling an
active btrfs + ceph workload and then trying to remount. Is this a known
issue?
Yeah sorry it's fixed in 3.10, I really need to send the patch back to
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-06-05 08:54:40)
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 09:59:05PM -0600, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi-
I'm pretty reliably triggering the following bug after powercycling an
active btrfs + ceph workload and then trying to remount. Is this a known
issue?
Yeah sorry it's fixed
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:34:08AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Ontue, 4 Jun 2013 16:26:57 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:16:53PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-04 18:17:54)
Hi gang,
I finally sat down to fix that readdir hang that has been in
I noticed that I was getting these errors on a bigger file system with more
snapshots that had been removed. This check is bogus since we won't inc
rec-found_ref if we don't find a REF_KEY _and_ a DIR_ITEM, so we only have to
worry about there being no references to a root if it actually has a
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:53:50AM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 05.06.2013 04:09, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
Or while_list_drain?
I'm fine with while_list_drain, although a name starting with list_
like all other list macros would be nice.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:03:41PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
I have seen a lot of boilerplate code that either follows the pattern of
while (!list_empty(head)) {
pos = list_entry(head-next, struct foo, list);
list_del(pos-list);
...
}
or
Dear Devs,
I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with:
mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef]
/etc/fstab mounts with the options:
noatime,noauto,space_cache,inode_cache
All on kernel 3.8.13.
Upon using rsync to copy some heavily hardlinked backups from ReiserFS,
I've so far had
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear Devs,
I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with:
mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef]
/etc/fstab mounts with the options:
noatime,noauto,space_cache,inode_cache
All on kernel 3.8.13.
Upon using rsync
Dear Devs,
I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with:
mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef]
/etc/fstab mounts with the options:
noatime,noauto,space_cache,inode_cache
All on kernel 3.8.13.
Upon using rsync to copy some heavily hardlinked backups from ReiserFS,
I've seen:
The
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 09:59:05PM -0600, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi-
I'm pretty reliably triggering the following bug after powercycling an
active btrfs + ceph workload and then trying to remount. Is this a known
issue?
Yeah sorry it's fixed in
On 05/06/13 16:05, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear Devs,
I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with:
mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef]
/etc/fstab mounts with the options:
noatime,noauto,space_cache,inode_cache
All on
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On 05/06/13 16:05, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear Devs,
I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with:
mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef]
/etc/fstab mounts with
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:59:27PM +0200, Holger Fischer wrote:
Dear BTRFS-Community,
as far as I understand I believe it would make sense to apply that one
upstream:
Thanks for bringing it up.
like described, it ... Fixes FTBFS on alpha and ia64 ...
cat 02-ftbfs.patch
Authors:
On 05/06/13 16:43, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On 05/06/13 16:05, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear Devs,
I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with:
mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef]
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:59:57PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On 05/06/13 16:43, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Martin wrote:
btrfs fi df:
Data, RAID1: total=2.85TB, used=2.84TB Data: total=8.00MB,
used=0.00 System, RAID1: total=8.00MB, used=412.00KB System:
On 05/06/13 17:24, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
OK, so you've got plenty of space to allocate. There were some
issues in this area (block reserves and ENOSPC, and I think
specifically addressing the issue of ENOSPC when there's space
On wed, 5 Jun 2013 15:36:36 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:34:08AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:26:57 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:16:53PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-04 18:17:54)
Hi gang,
I
Balance will create reloc_root for each fs root, and it's going to
record last_snapshot to filter shared blocks. The side effect of
setting last_snapshot is to break nocow attributes of files.
Since the extents are not shared by the relocation tree after the balance,
we can recover the old
20 matches
Mail list logo
