On 10/26/2010 03:07 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
We calculate timeout (either 1 or MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) based on whether
num_writers 1 or should_grow at the top of the loop. Then, much much
later, we wait for that timeout if either num_writers or should_grow is
true. However, it's possible for a
I can't reproduce this right know, but it seems that creating lots of
snapshots, one per minute (keeping only a dozens of them) may block the
system. Every btrfs snap processes stay idle and the load skyrockets to 900.
I use an old version: 2.6.34.5 kernel, and the system is still very
responsive
Change btrfs filesystem show to allow the user to control the scales
used for sizes in the output.
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk
---
btrfs.c|2 +-
btrfs_cmds.c | 45 ++---
man/btrfs.8.in | 15 ++-
3 files
Make the pretty-printer for data sizes capable of printing in ISO
(powers of 10^3), binary (powers of 2^10) or raw (a simple byte
count).
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk
---
btrfs-show.c |7 ---
btrfs_cmds.c | 13 -
mkfs.c |3 ++-
utils.c | 48
While playing around with resizing volumes recently, I realised
that I didn't know whether btrfs fi show and btrfs fi df reported
sizes in ISO (e.g. powers of 10^3) units, as they appear to from the
labels they use, or in binary (powers of 2^10) units. Also, a mere
three significant figures is
Change btrfs-show to allow the user to control the scales used for
sizes in the output.
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk
---
btrfs-show.c| 27 +++
man/btrfs-show.8.in | 10 --
2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, liubo wrote:
On 10/26/2010 03:07 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
We calculate timeout (either 1 or MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) based on whether
num_writers 1 or should_grow at the top of the loop. Then, much much
later, we wait for that timeout if either num_writers or should_grow is
btrfs_commit_transaction will free our trans, but because we pass trans to
shrink_delalloc we could possibly have a use after free situation. So instead
if we commit the transaction, set trans to null and set committed to true so we
don't keep trying to commit a transaction. This fixes a panic I
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:36:26AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, liubo wrote:
Since wake_up() itself provides a implied wmb, and a wq active check,
it is better to drop if (wq) in __btrfs_end_transaction().
I see. It could also be
smb_mb();
if (wq)
On Monday, 25 October, 2010, David Nicol wrote:
I am certainly not in a position to answer for Chris Mason, but I am
happy to share my response to the question, coming from a perspective
of being somewhat obsessive about not breaking back-compat.
I agree with this sentence; in fact I suggested
Hi sage,
On Monday, 25 October, 2010, Sage Weil wrote:
Add a mount option user_subvol_rm_allowed that allows users to delete a
(potentially non-empty!) subvol when they would otherwise we allowed to do
an rmdir(2). We duplicate the may_delete() checks from the core VFS code
to implement
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
inode = dentry-d_inode;
+ dest = BTRFS_I(inode)-root;
+ if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)){
+ /*
+* Regular user. Only allow this with a special mount
+* option, and when rmdir(2) would have been
We calculate timeout (either 1 or MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) based on whether
num_writers 1 or should_grow at the top of the loop. Then, much much
later, we wait for that timeout if either num_writers or should_grow is
true. However, it's possible for a racing process (calling
Add a mount option user_subvol_rm_allowed that allows users to delete a
(potentially non-empty!) subvol when they would otherwise we allowed to do
an rmdir(2). We duplicate the may_delete() checks from the core VFS code
to implement identical security checks (minus the directory size check).
We
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:28:53 +0200
Xavier Nicollet nicol...@jeru.org wrote:
I can't reproduce this right know, but it seems that creating lots of
snapshots, one per minute (keeping only a dozens of them) may block
the system. Every btrfs snap processes stay idle and the load
skyrockets to
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:32:14PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
The package btrfs-tools needs a lot of care:
- the INSTALL file still reports that is not possible to remove a subvolume
- a lot of program are not documented (what is the meaning of btrfs-zero-log
?)
- btrfs dev scan and
On 10/27/2010 01:06 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:36:26AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, liubo wrote:
Since wake_up() itself provides a implied wmb, and a wq active check,
it is better to drop if (wq) in __btrfs_end_transaction().
I see. It could also be
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:20:58PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
For example, right now extlinux support booting btrfs, but _only_ from
the top-level root. if i just had a way to swap the top-level root
with a different subvol, i could overcome several problems i have with
users all at
18 matches
Mail list logo
