On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:42:07PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
There will be savings in the future, however -- when I add Li's
suggestion for tracking the number of bytes (in the block groups as a
whole, and in terms of useful data stored), plus the vaddr of the
last-moved block group, the
Hi,
I've noticed that Arne's scrub patches add scrub variables directly
into the fs_info structure, while you have a separate struct.
I was wondering whether it would be better to put items of
btrfs_balance_info to fs_info too, balance state is a global info.
Although fs_info is a huge
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:12:32PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that Arne's scrub patches add scrub variables directly
into the fs_info structure, while you have a separate struct.
Chris (I think -- might have been Josef) suggested the use of a
struct, back when I was first
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 07:34:00AM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 10.04.11:
This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.
This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h |9
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |2
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 10.04.11:
This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.
Just for curiosity:
If I remember correct then btrfs device delete
