On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:57:42PM -0600, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Chris Mason
> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull my for-linus branch:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
> > for-linus
>
> This seems to introduce a new warning:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> Please pull my for-linus branch:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus
This seems to introduce a new warning:
In file included from fs/btrfs/ctree.c:22:0:
fs/btrfs/ctree.c: In function ‘btrfs
A couple tests have been uploaded to http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1206152-
STEA-VMTESTS05.
Note for the nodatacow, the subvolume did have a snapshot, since the point was
for VM's that could be snapshoted (either through virsh or btrfs). Thus the
first write to a block was cow, but subseq
Hello Josef Bacik,
The patch 607d432da054: "Btrfs: add support for multiple csum
algorithms" from Dec 2, 2008, leads to the following warning:
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:298 csum_tree_block()
error: memcpy() '&found' too small (4 vs 9)
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
284 if (csum_size > sizeof(i
There is some concern that these iput()'s could be the final iputs and could
induce lockups on people waiting on writeback. This would happen in the
rare case that we don't create ordered extents because of an error, but it
is theoretically possible and we already have a mechanism to deal with thi
Hi Linus,
Please pull my for-linus branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus
The dates look like I had to rebase this morning because there was a compiler
warning for a printk arg that I had missed earlier.
These are all fixes, including one to preven
There is some concern that these iput()'s could be the final iputs and could
induce lockups on people waiting on writeback. This would happen in the
rare case that we don't create ordered extents because of an error, but it
is theoretically possible and we already have a mechanism to deal with thi
On 06/15/2012 12:50 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> I prefer this over adding an extra option to disable. This
> way there's no confusion if the compression is on or off.
>
> mount -o compress,nocompress /dev /mnt
The confusion still exists if an user does:
mount -o compress,compress=no /dev
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:21:40PM -0400, Andrew Mahone wrote:
> I noticed a few days ago that btrfs fi defrag -cXXX can not be used to
> compress files unless they are fragmented. The attached patch passes
> the compression flag to should_defrag_range, where it disables the
> adjacent-extent and e
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 12:50 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> mount -o compress,nocompress /dev /mnt
>
> Is it on or off? Yeah we can document that nocompress has higher
> priority. But then I can't turn a nocompress option back to compress via
> remount. This is possible with Arnd's patch.
This hap
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 12:50 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> that takes a different approach: setting compression to '=no' disables
> compression. I prefer this over adding an extra option to disable. This
> way there's no confusion if the compression is on or off.
>
> mount -o compress,nocompress
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:56:49PM +0300, Andrei Popa wrote:
> In btrfs if we mount with "compress" we have no way to disable
> compressing by remounting
> (mount -o remount /mnt/btrfs), only by unmounting and mounting without
> "compress".
> This patch adds "nocompress" mount option which can be
In btrfs if we mount with "compress" we have no way to disable
compressing by remounting
(mount -o remount /mnt/btrfs), only by unmounting and mounting without
"compress".
This patch adds "nocompress" mount option which can be used to remount
the filesystem without compression:
# mount -o remount,
On 06/15/2012 05:18 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>>> index f6ab6f5..4d0ceed 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>>> @@ -4478,6 +4478,11 @@ int btrfs_dirty_inode(struct ino
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index f6ab6f5..4d0ceed 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -4478,6 +4478,11 @@ int btrfs_dirty_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> static int btrfs_update_time(struct inod
On 06/15/2012 03:49 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
> Before the update_time inode operation was indroduced, it was
> not possible to prevent updates of atime on RO subvolumes. VFS
> was only able to check for RO on the mount, but did not know
> anything about btrfs subvolumes.
>
> btrfs_update_time d
Before the update_time inode operation was indroduced, it was
not possible to prevent updates of atime on RO subvolumes. VFS
was only able to check for RO on the mount, but did not know
anything about btrfs subvolumes.
btrfs_update_time does now check if the root is RO and skip
updating of times.
17 matches
Mail list logo
