Signed-off-by: Jie Liu jeff@oracle.com
---
fs/btrfs/super.c | 10 --
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
index 15634d4..16f31e1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static int
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:19:07AM +0300, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
The test checks if no duplicate d_off values are returned and that
those values are seekable to the right inodes.
Signed-off-by: Grazvydas Ignotas nota...@gmail.com
Thanks a lot! I've applied it locally and will push it out
Isn't it about time to make some hard decisions about btrfsck? Three
years is enough time to go without this type of functionality in a
modern filesystem, especially given btrfs's fragility in the face of
power failures.
Given the lack of progress, and the inability to provide remotely
realistic
To reproduce the bug:
# mount /dev/sda7 /mnt
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/src bs=4K count=1
# umount /mnt
# mount -o nodatasum /dev/sda7 /mnt
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/dst bs=4K count=1
# clone_range -s 4K -l 4K /mnt/src /mnt/dst
# echo 3 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
# cat /mnt/dst
The dst file will have the same inode flags with dst file after
file clone, and I think it's unexpected.
For example, the dst file will suddenly become immutable after
getting some share of data with src file, if the src is immutable.
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
14:06, Jeff Liu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jie Liu jeff@oracle.com
---
fs/btrfs/super.c | 10 --
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
index 15634d4..16f31e1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@
