On Thu, 30.09.10 21:59, Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) wrote:
> > So my question is, is this what we want? Do I just need to quit bitching
> > and
> > make it work? Or am I doing something wrong? This is a completely new
> > area for
> > me so I'm just looking around at what md/dm does an
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 21:48, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:43:27PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> >
>> > > Second question is why is checking in /sys a bi
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:43:27PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > > Second question is why is checking in /sys a big deal, would ??you prefer
> > > an
> > > interface lik
Kay Sievers writes:
>
> Yeah, we thought about that too, but a btrfs mount does not show up as
> a block device, like md/dm, so there is no place for a slaves/
> directory in /sys with the individual disks listed. How could be solve
> that? Create some fake blockdev for every btrfs mount, but tha
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:43:00AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>
> >> > Second question is why is checking in /sys a b
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> > Second question is why is checking in /sys a big deal, would ??you prefer
>> > an
>> > interface like we did for ali
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:43:27PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > > Second question is why is checking in /sys a big deal, would ??you prefer
> > > an
> > > interface lik
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> > Second question is why is checking in /sys a big deal, would ??you prefer an
> > interface like we did for alignment in libblkid?
>
> It's about knowing what's behind the 'nodev
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 01:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way to
>> get
>> all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the
>> disks
>>
On 09/29/2010 08:59 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 29.09.10 16:25, Ric Wheeler (rwhee...@redhat.com) wrote:
This in fact is how all current readahead implementations work, be it
the fedora, the suse or ubuntu's readahead or Arjan's sreadahead. What's
new is that in the systemd case we t
On Wed, 29.09.10 16:25, Ric Wheeler (rwhee...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >This in fact is how all current readahead implementations work, be it
> >the fedora, the suse or ubuntu's readahead or Arjan's sreadahead. What's
> >new is that in the systemd case we try to test for ssd/rotating
> >properly, inst
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Second question is why is checking in /sys a big deal, would you prefer an
> interface like we did for alignment in libblkid?
It's about knowing what's behind the 'nodev' major == 0 of a btrfs
mount. There is no way to get that from /sys or an
On 09/29/2010 09:19 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 28.09.10 20:08, Josef Bacik (jo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 07:25:13PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
This was a request from the systemd guys. They need
On Tue, 28.09.10 20:08, Josef Bacik (jo...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 07:25:13PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way
> > > to get
> > >
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:28:51AM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> what about using your ioctl to exporting also other info ? For example devid,
> size, bytes, uuid ...
>
> I know that btrfs filesystem-show does the same, but it reads the partition
> (the disk) instead of quer
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 07:25:13PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way
> > to get
> > all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way to
> get
> all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the
> disks
> are SSD for...something, I didn't ask :). I've tested this wit
Hi Josef,
what about using your ioctl to exporting also other info ? For example devid,
size, bytes, uuid ...
I know that btrfs filesystem-show does the same, but it reads the partition
(the disk) instead of query the filesystem. That means:
- It work even for unmounted filesystem (which is goo
18 matches
Mail list logo
