I have sent a set of patches that address bugs like this.
I applied the V2 patchset to kernel-v2.6.32 (actually, I applied them
to btrfs-unstalbe, took a kernel-v2.6.32 and replaced its btrfs with
the patched one in btrfs-unstable), and did the test, then got:
$ sudo btrfs device del
Hi all,
I tried to reproduce the bug reported by Tomas Thiemel
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg04818.html) with loop
device, and caught a bug report.
kernel: v2.6.34-rc5-279-g1600f9d
btrfs_progs: v0.19-16-g075587c
cd /tmp
mkdir mnt0
mkdir mnt1
dd if=/dev/zero of=./disk0 bs=1M
2010/4/26 C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me:
hello,
i maintain an unofficial initrd hook in Arch Linux that allows BTRFS
to be used as the root device. i am trying to update the hook to use
the more extensive btrfs command, adding support for users to change
their default subvolume from
2009/12/18 Zhaolei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com:
sniper wrote:
No, many pointers in btrfs function arguments are not pointing to an
absolute address, but relative to the start address of extent.
Take following function as example, argument inode_item is an offset
value to the beginning of leaf. So
2009/12/12 Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
I found the help of the btrfctl command very poor. I rewrite some help
messages and correct (or added when needed) the check of the number of
parameter.
Please apply.
* Improve/correct the check of the arguments number
* Revise
31 int btrfs_defrag_leaves(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
32 struct btrfs_root *root, int cache_only)
33 {
...
45 if (cache_only) //check once
46 goto out;
79 root-defrag_max.objectid = 0; //needless? The
following
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 15:25 +0800, Qinghuang Feng wrote:
merge list_for_each and list_entry to list_for_each_entry.
Thanks, I've queued this up.
Good, but
Now I have made a new patch for cleanupping all the
