I am having an issue with btrfs resize in Fedora 28. I am attempting
to enlarge my Btrfs partition. Every time I run "btrfs filesystem
resize max $MOUNT", the command runs for a few minutes and then hangs
forcing the system to be reset. I am not sure what the state of the
filesystem really is at
19.10.2018 12:41, Cerem Cem ASLAN пишет:
> By saying "manually", I mean copying files into a subvolume on a
> different mountpoint manually, then mark the target as if it is
> created by "btrfs send | btrfs receive".
>
> Rationale:
>
> When we delete all common snapshots from source, we have to
Hi,
I have a copy of this data online and a backup offline but I would
like to find out if we can recover this.
A drive broke and I made a mess while replacing it.
each of sda,sdb,sdc,sdd is a 2 disk hardware RAID0.
one disk of sda died and.
I replaced it.
Made a new raid0 array: sde
This was my
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:31:09PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 19.10.2018 17:18, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:03:20PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> Here is the second posting of the fsid change support for the kernel. For
> >> background information you can
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:17:32AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
> This series implements swap file support for Btrfs.
>
> Changes from v8 [1]:
>
> - Fixed a bug in btrfs_swap_activate() which would cause us to miss some
> file extents if they were merged into one extent
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:51:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/10/19 下午9:42, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> This patchset can be fetched from github:
> >> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/qgroup_balance_skip_trees
> >>
>
On 2018/10/19 下午9:42, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> This patchset can be fetched from github:
>> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/qgroup_balance_skip_trees
>>
>> Which is still based on v4.19-rc1, but with previous submitted patches
On 19.10.2018 17:18, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:03:20PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Here is the second posting of the fsid change support for the kernel. For
>> background information you can refer to v1 [0]. The main changes in this
>> version
>> are around the
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:03:20PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Here is the second posting of the fsid change support for the kernel. For
> background information you can refer to v1 [0]. The main changes in this
> version
> are around the handling of possible split-brain scenarios. I've
On 2018/10/19 下午9:42, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> This patchset can be fetched from github:
>> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/qgroup_balance_skip_trees
>>
>> Which is still based on v4.19-rc1, but with previous submitted patches
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patchset can be fetched from github:
> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/qgroup_balance_skip_trees
>
> Which is still based on v4.19-rc1, but with previous submitted patches
> as dependency.
Please rebase this patchset on
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 03:12:34PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > +free_out:
> > + kfree(block);
> > + free_extent_buffer(reloc_eb);
> > +out:
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + btrfs_err_rl(fs_info,
> > +
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> +free_out:
> + kfree(block);
> + free_extent_buffer(reloc_eb);
> +out:
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + btrfs_err_rl(fs_info,
> + "failed to account subtree at bytenr %llu: %d",
> +
On 2018/10/19 下午6:04, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:46:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Did you mean some like this is possible?
>>
>> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() {
>> kfree(entry);
>> }
>>
>> If so, I still don't really believe it's OK.
>>
>> For the following
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:02:48PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> At inode.c:evict_inode_truncate_pages(), when we iterate over the inode's
> extent states, we access an extent state record's "state" field after we
> unlocked the inode's io tree lock. This can lead
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:46:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Did you mean some like this is possible?
>
> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() {
> kfree(entry);
> }
>
> If so, I still don't really believe it's OK.
>
> For the following tree:
> 4
>
On 2018/10/19 下午5:15, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 07:29:26AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018/10/19 上午12:20, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:27PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+void btrfs_qgroup_clean_swapped_blocks(struct btrfs_root *root)
+{
By saying "manually", I mean copying files into a subvolume on a
different mountpoint manually, then mark the target as if it is
created by "btrfs send | btrfs receive".
Rationale:
When we delete all common snapshots from source, we have to send whole
snapshot for next time. This ability will
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 07:29:26AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/10/19 上午12:20, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:17:27PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> +void btrfs_qgroup_clean_swapped_blocks(struct btrfs_root *root)
> >> +{
> >> + struct btrfs_qgroup_swapped_blocks
19 matches
Mail list logo
