On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Martin <rc6encryp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the benchmark tools and tips on where the issues might be. > > Is Fedora 24 rawhide preferred over ArchLinux?
I'm not sure what Arch does any differently to their kernels from kernel.org kernels. But bugzilla.kernel.org offers a Mainline and Fedora drop down for identifying the kernel source tree. > > If I want to compile a mainline kernel. Are there anything I need to tune? Fedora kernels do not have these options set. # CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY is not set # CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS is not set # CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG is not set # CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT is not set The sanity and integrity tests are both compile time and mount time options, i.e. it has to be compiled enabled for the mount option to do anything. I can't recall any thread where a developer asked a user to set any of these options for testing though. > When I do the tests, how do I log the info you would like to see, if I > find a bug? bugzilla.kernel.org for tracking, and then reference the URL for the bug with a summary in an email to list is how I usually do it. The main thing is going to be the exact reproduce steps. It's also better, I think, to have complete dmesg (or journalctl -k) attached to the bug report because not all problems are directly related to Btrfs, they can have contributing factors elsewhere. And various MTAs, or more commonly MUAs, have a tendancy to wrap such wide text as found in kernel or journald messages. And then whatever Austin says. -- Chris Murphy -- 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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
