Matt Pursley wrote (ao):
I have an LSI HBA card (LSI SAS 9207-8i) with 12 7200rpm SAS drives
attached. When it's formated with mdraid6+ext4 I get about 1200MB/s
for multiple streaming random reads with iozone. With btrfs in
3.9.0-rc4 I can also get about 1200MB/s, but only with one stream at
For created snapshots, the full root_item is copied from the source
root and afterwards selectively modified. The current code forgets
to clear the field received_uuid. The only problem is that it is
confusing when you look at it with 'btrfs subv list', since for
writable snapshots, the contents
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
ulist_add() may return -ENOMEM, fix missing check about
return value.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
Changelog v1-v2:
ulist_add() may return 1, and this is ok. For this case,
btrfs_qgroup_reserve() should
Hello Josef,
It really takes me the whole day to tack such strange regression down!
In fact, i should test every patch even for a cleanup patch carefully….
Sorry for inconvenience to you.
Wang
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
ulist_add() may return -ENOMEM, fix missing
Dave reported a BUG_ON() that happened in end_page_writeback() after an abort.
This happened because we unconditionally call end_page_writeback() in the endio
case, which is right. However when we abort the transaction we will call
end_page_writeback() on any writeback pages we find, which is
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Since all the quota configurations are loaded in memory, and we can
have ioctl checks before operating in the disk. It is safe to do such
things because qgroup_ioctl_lock is held outside.
Without these extra checks firstly, it should be ok to do user
On Tue, April 16, 2013 at 14:22 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Jan, more comments below..
[...snip..]
+
+static long btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan_status(struct file *file, void __user
*arg)
+{
+struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(fdentry(file)-d_inode)-root;
+struct
The locking order for stuff is
__sb_start_write
ordered_mutex
but with sync() we don't do __sb_start_write for some strange reason, which
means that our iput in wait_ordered_extents could start a transaction which does
the __sb_start_write while we're holding the ordered_mutex. Fix this by
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:19:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
The locking order for stuff is
__sb_start_write
ordered_mutex
but with sync() we don't do __sb_start_write for some strange reason, which
means that our iput in wait_ordered_extents could start a transaction which
does
the
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Sander san...@humilis.net wrote:
Matt Pursley wrote (ao):
I have an LSI HBA card (LSI SAS 9207-8i) with 12 7200rpm SAS drives
attached. When it's formated with mdraid6+ext4 I get about 1200MB/s
for multiple streaming random reads with iozone. With btrfs in
This fixes the following errors:
fs/btrfs/reada.c: In function ‘btrfs_reada_wait’:
fs/btrfs/reada.c:958:42: error: invalid operands to binary (have ‘atomic_t’
and ‘int’)
fs/btrfs/reada.c:961:41: error: invalid operands to binary (have ‘atomic_t’
and ‘int’)
Signed-off-by: Vincent Stehlé
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:45:18PM +0200, Vincent wrote:
Thanks for your review; here is a resend with your 'Reviewed-by'.
No need to do that, reviewed-by or the other tags are picked by
maintainers, see
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:30:16PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
In order to avoid this problem, we introduce a lock named super_lock into
the btrfs_fs_info structure. If we want to update incompat/compat flags
of the super block, we must hold it.
+ /*
+ * Used to protect the
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:26:38PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
If out of memory happens, we should return -ENOMEM directly to the caller
rather than continue the work.
Reviewed-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of
14 matches
Mail list logo
