@prakashsurya again the same fail
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/498#issuecomment-347252303
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
We found this issue during merging of ABD into our gate
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/498
-- Commit Summary --
* fixed arc_cksum_is_equal() that doesn't take into account ABD-logic
-- File Changes --
M
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1567,7 +1569,7 @@ arc_cksum_is_equal(arc_buf_hdr_t *hdr, zio_t *zio)
bzero((char *)cbuf + csize, HDR_GET_PSIZE(hdr) - csize);
ok. will do.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
https://www.illumos.org/issues/8856
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/498#issuecomment-346394055
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
hmm, test-build failed because of
```could not determine the workspace used to perform the build```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/498#issuecomment-346619367
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
first look. will try to understand how it works.
> @@ -188,9 +188,13 @@ zfs_iter_bookmarks(zfs_handle_t *zhp, zfs_iter_f func,
> void *data)
/* Setup the requested properties nvlist. */
props = fnvlist_alloc();
-
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
- return (0);
+ switch (new_type) {
+ case HOLE:
+ pending->sru.hole.datablksz = datablksz;
+ break;
+ case DATA:
+ pending->sru.data.datablksz = datablksz;
+
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
- return (0);
+ switch (new_type) {
+ case HOLE:
+ pending->sru.hole.datablksz = datablksz;
+ break;
+ case DATA:
+ pending->sru.data.datablksz = datablksz;
+
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
- return (0);
+ switch (new_type) {
+ case HOLE:
+ pending->sru.hole.datablksz = datablksz;
+ break;
+ case DATA:
+ pending->sru.data.datablksz = datablksz;
+
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> + dbn->dbn_dirty = B_FALSE;
+ }
+ }
+#ifdef ZFS_DEBUG
+ for (dsl_bookmark_node_t *dbn = avl_first(>ds_bookmarks);
+ dbn != NULL; dbn = AVL_NEXT(>ds_bookmarks, dbn)) {
+
Could you please explain how the change handles the 3rd problem?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/645#issuecomment-394149250
--
Ramzec requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -2940,7 +2916,8 @@ dbuf_rele_and_unlock(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag)
db->db.db_size, db);
mutex_exit(>db_mtx);
- if (db->db_caching_status ==
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2940,7 +2916,8 @@ dbuf_rele_and_unlock(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag)
db->db.db_size, db);
mutex_exit(>db_mtx);
- if (db->db_caching_status ==
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1000,6 +1000,16 @@ dbuf_read_impl(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, zio_t *zio,
> uint32_t flags)
return;
}
+ if (BP_IS_REDACTED(db->db_blkptr)) {
Could you please add a comment, that explains the meaning of this
condition-block
I'm OK with the changes. I'm going to deeply learn the whole code, to
understand what is it. Let me several days.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> + * There should not be anything wrong with having kstats for
+* snapshots. Since we are not sure how useful they would be
+* though nor how much their memory overhead would matter in
+* a filesystem with many snapshots, we
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> + * There should not be anything wrong with having kstats for
+* snapshots. Since we are not sure how useful they would be
+* though nor how much their memory overhead would matter in
+* a filesystem with many snapshots, we
No one is interested?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/595#issuecomment-380120217
--
openzfs: openzfs-developer
Permalink:
Do you mean somehow avoid owning of the corresponding dataset by the IOCTLs
that do zfsvfs_create() ?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/595#issuecomment-380171454
Explanation of the inevitability of the repetition:
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
> there is a concurrency problem that is being avoided.
correct, there are 3 items that involved into the problem:
1. IOCTLs that do
**zfsvfs_hold()**->**zfsvfs_create()**->**dmu_objset_own()**->long-hold
2. **zfs_domount()**->**zfsvfs_create()**->**dmu_objset_own()**->long-hold
3. ZFS-Recv:
21 matches
Mail list logo
