On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 19-11-10 16:16:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:45:52AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 17-11-10 22:28:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
The fact that a call to -write_begin can randomly return with s_umount
held,
Taking s_umount lock inside i_mutex can result in an ABBA deadlock:
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.37-rc3+ #26
---
append_writer/12828 is trying to
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:02:39PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
int writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(struct super_block *sb)
{
if (!writeback_in_progress(sb-s_bdi)) {
- down_read(sb-s_umount);
- writeback_inodes_sb(sb);
- up_read(sb-s_umount);
+
On 11/23/2010 12:02 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
Taking s_umount lock inside i_mutex can result in an ABBA deadlock:
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.37-rc3+ #26
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
*
* Invoke writeback_inodes_sb if no writeback is currently underway.
* Returns 1 if writeback was started, 0 if not.
+ *
+ * Even if 1 is returned, writeback may not be started if memory allocation
+ * fails. This
On 11/23/2010 12:54 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
*
* Invoke writeback_inodes_sb if no writeback is currently underway.
* Returns 1 if writeback was started, 0 if not.
+ *
+ * Even if 1 is returned, writeback may not be started if
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
[ ... ]
Avoid both these issues by issuing completely asynchronous writeback request
in
writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle. Don't let that fool you into thinking these
functions don't suck any more.
ext4 now passes extensive
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
[ ... ]
Avoid both these issues by issuing completely asynchronous writeback
request in
writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle. Don't let that fool you into thinking
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:02:39 +1100, Nick Piggin npig...@kernel.dk wrote:
Taking s_umount lock inside i_mutex can result in an ABBA deadlock:
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.37-rc3+ #26
On Tue 23-11-10 21:11:49, Nick Piggin wrote:
The issue of writeback_inodes_sb being synchronous so far as it has to
wait until the work has been dequeued is another subtlety. That is a
funny interface though, really. It has 3 callers, sync, quota, and
ubifs. From a quick look, quota and ubifs
On Tue 23-11-10 19:07:58, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 19-11-10 16:16:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:45:52AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 17-11-10 22:28:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
The fact that a call to
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 07:52:23 -0500:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
[ ... ]
Avoid both these issues by issuing completely asynchronous writeback
There are two big problems currently with FIEMAP
1) We return extents for holes. This isn't supposed to happen, we just don't
return extents for holes and then userspace interprets the lack of an extent as
a hole.
2) We sometimes don't set FIEMAP_EXTENT_LAST properly. This is because we wait
Currently we fail xfstest 236 because we're not updating the inode ctime on
link. This is a simple fix, and makes it so we pass 236 now. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Brian Sullivan's message of 2010-11-22 18:29:42 -0500:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Brian Sullivan bexam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On
Excerpts from Brian Sullivan's message of 2010-11-23 15:27:09 -0500:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Brian Sullivan's message of 2010-11-22 18:29:42 -0500:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Brian Sullivan bexam...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello btrfs people
btrfs still does not implement raid5,6 so here comes the question: all
filesystems have mkfs flags for aligning to an underlying RAID.
Is it there also for btrfs? I don't seem able to find it. Is it
autodetected for MD/LVM2 like in xfs and ext4?
I think that some people in
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:58:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 07:52:23 -0500:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Nick Piggin's message of 2010-11-23 05:02:39 -0500:
[ ... ]
Avoid both
Hi,
As I like experimenting with file systems, and as lots of boot cds don't
have the latest kernel/userspace tools, I decided to create my own
bootcd for my personal use. As I think it could be interesting for other
people, I made it available at http://prrescue.prnet.org
Bye,
David Arendt
Thank you all for your responses to my boot snapshot problem but it
still exists.
.
Hugo, you told me how to mount a snapshot. Thank you, that works but you
didn't tell me how to boot into it.
Anthony, I really hoped that you had provided the answer using grub but
all combinations of your
20 matches
Mail list logo
