if there is anything you would like me to try. I am
running 4.2 with the 4.3 for-linus tree applied and the 4.2.x patches with
btrfs fixes removed. On top of this are a few patches from this list.
TIA
Ed Tomlinson
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 1:52:21 PM EDT, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24
a good
testcase for any patches that appear.
Meanwhile I've been falling back to rsync which always works but is so much
slower.
TIA
Ed
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 9:42:54 AM EDT, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Tomlinson <e...@aei.ca> wrote:
Filipe,
Its
of it along with this fix. Incremental
sends
are now working again.
Tested-by: Ed Tomlinson <e...@aei.ca>
This fixes a regression, can we please get into 4.3?
Thanks
Ed Tomlinson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message
Hi,
I have the same problem here. I'd love to stop using rsync in place of
send recieve. As with Paride my _working_ scripts just stop functioning...
Thanks
Ed
on Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:20:11 PM EDT, Paride Legovini wrote:
Hi,
btrfs send -c stopped working for me several months
be seen in the two subvol lists, yet send/recieve cannot
seem to find it for an incremental backup.
Why?
TIA
Ed Tomlinson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org
Chris,
Have you looked at Omar Sandoval's
[PATCH v2 0/5] Btrfs: RAID 5/6 missing device scrub+replace
It would be really nice to have these when/if a disk dies... I
been running with them since v1 without issue.
Thanks
Ed Tomlinson
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 1:24:41 PM EDT, Chris Mason
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:15:29 AM EDT, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:07:00AM +0800, wangyf wrote:
Hi,
I have tested your PATCH v2 , but something wrong happened.
kernel: 4.1.0-rc7+ with your five patches
vitrualBox ubuntu14.10-server + LVM
I make a new btrfs.ko with
On Saturday, February 7, 2015 1:39:07 AM EST, Duncan wrote:
The btrfs raid1 read-mode device choice algorithm
Duncan,
Very interesting suff on the raid1 read select alg. What changes with
raid5/6? Is that alg 'smarter'?
TIA
Ed Tomlinson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
-03 2:40 GMT+08:00 Ed Tomlinson e...@aei.ca:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 9:39:06 AM EST, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Hi
Booting a kernel with the three patches:
[PATCH] Btrfs: fix find_free_dev_extent() malfunction in case device tree
has hole ...
My fault, i should test these patches before i submit
Hi,
Found a problem compile testing this.
hole_size = key_offset - search_start;
Should not that be key.offset ?
TIA
Ed Tomlinson
On Monday, February 2, 2015 2:31:39 AM EST, Forrest Liu wrote:
If device tree has hole, find_free_dev_extent() cannot find available
address properly
.
Reported-by: Mike Gavrilov mikhail.v.gavri...@gmail.com
Reported-by: Ed Tomlinson e...@aei.ca
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
changelog:
v2:
Use the a more generic fucntion, reset_nlink(), to repair the inode
nlink.
It will remove all, including valid
fs one of which may be adding and
populating a
lost+found directory.
Thanks
Ed Tomlinson
PS. It would be very interesting to find out WHY these files are ending up
unlinked. Ideas?
On Wednesday 03 December 2014 12:18:26 you wrote:
Update on patch 4 and 6, other is not changed.
This nlink
On Monday 25 July 2011 15:49:37 Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Ed Tomlinson's message of 2011-07-22 19:21:00 -0400:
On Thursday 21 July 2011 22:59:53 Linus Torvalds wrote:
So there it is. Gone are the 2.6.bignum days, and 3.0 is out.
Hi,
Managed to get this with btrfs
On Thursday 21 July 2011 22:59:53 Linus Torvalds wrote:
So there it is. Gone are the 2.6.bignum days, and 3.0 is out.
Hi,
Managed to get this with btrfs rsync(ing) from ext4 to a btrfs fs with three
partitions using raid1.
[16018.211493] device fsid f7186eeb-60df-4b1a-890a-4a1eb42f81fe
On Monday 14 June 2010 20:47:35 Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 03:24:19PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
On Friday 11 June 2010 15:37:31 Chris Mason wrote:
Hello everyone,
The master branch of the btrfs-unstable tree is a collection of fixes
and cleanups, including two
be looked into? I've kept the fs just in case.
Thanks
Ed Tomlinson
Dan Carpenter (11) commits (+24/-17):
Btrfs: handle error returns from btrfs_lookup_dir_item() (+2/-0)
Btrfs: btrfs_read_fs_root_no_name() returns ERR_PTRs (+4/-0)
Btrfs: unwind after btrfs_start_transaction() errors
[ 2302.339860] CR2: 0030
[ 2302.343138] ---[ end trace e68668d9a065c83e ]---
idea?
TIA
Ed Tomlinson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
On Monday 15 February 2010 10:56:53 Chris Mason wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:14:50PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Hi,
Found this in my log for 2.6.33-rc8. Figgured it might be interesting
since .33 is close.
The btrfs tree locking is very tricky for lockdep. I don't quite see
Hi,
Found this in my log for 2.6.33-rc8. Figgured it might be interesting since
.33 is close.
Thanks,
Ed
[102331.564869]
[102331.564871]
I don't think it's worth waiting a
release or two to merge something.
I like this idea.
I also want to test btrfs. but I'm not interested out of tree code.
I'll second this. Please get btrfsdev into mainline asap.
TIA
Ed Tomlinson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
20 matches
Mail list logo