On to, 2011-02-10 at 10:29 -0300, Eduardo Silva wrote:
[PATCH] Add safe string manipulation functions
Deprecate direct use of strcpy(3)
The following string manipulation function has been added:
- string_copy() : wrapper of strcpy(3)
- string_ncopy(): wrapper of strncpy(3)
both
Hi,
are you sure that patch is in the kernel?
I'm using 2.6.37 and don't have those attribues in my /sys.
Felix
On 10. February 2011 - 13:29, Petr Uzel wrote:
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:29:27 +0100
From: Petr Uzel petr.u...@suse.cz
To: Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org
Cc: Felix Blanke
I'm encountering premature ENOSPC issues recently where my Btrfs
testing partition will either prematurely return an ENOSPC, or lock up
the operations trying to access the partition.
I have bisected the problem to this commit:
As I type this, I have an ssh process running that's dumping data into
a fifo at high speed (maybe 500Mbps) and a tar process that's
untarring from the same fifo onto btrfs. The btrfs fs is mounted -o
space_cache,compress. This machine has 8GB ram, 8 logical cores, and
a fast (i7-2600) CPU, so
Excerpts from Andrew Lutomirski's message of 2011-02-11 10:08:52 -0500:
As I type this, I have an ssh process running that's dumping data into
a fifo at high speed (maybe 500Mbps) and a tar process that's
untarring from the same fifo onto btrfs. The btrfs fs is mounted -o
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Andrew Lutomirski a...@luto.us wrote:
As I type this, I have an ssh process running that's dumping data into
a fifo at high speed (maybe 500Mbps) and a tar process that's
untarring from the same fifo onto btrfs. The btrfs fs is mounted -o
space_cache,compress.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:46:38 -0500, Ben Gamari bgam...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a disk array behind two external SATA port multipliers (four
disks on each multiplier) which has been running btrfs (RAID 1 for
both data and metadata). Unfortunately, earlier today it seems one of
the SATA cables
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:21:47AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote:
I'm encountering premature ENOSPC issues recently where my Btrfs
testing partition will either prematurely return an ENOSPC, or lock up
the operations trying to access the partition.
I have bisected the problem to this commit:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:21:47AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote:
I'm encountering premature ENOSPC issues recently where my Btrfs
testing partition will either prematurely return an ENOSPC, or lock up
the operations trying to
On 02/11/2011 08:23 PM, Felix Blanke wrote:
What do you mean with configured?
I'm using loop devices with loop aes, and I've looked into /sys for a device
which is actually in use.
Ehm. It is really Loop-AES?
Then ask author to backport it there, Loop-AES is not mainline code.
He usually
Yeah, for me its loop-aes.
Ah ok, didn't knew that it replaces that whole loop thing :)
Felix
On Feb 11, 2011 8:32 PM, Milan Broz mb...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/11/2011 08:23 PM, Felix Blanke wrote:
What do you mean with configured?
I'm using loop devices with loop aes, and I've looked into
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Lutomirski's message of 2011-02-11 10:08:52 -0500:
As I type this, I have an ssh process running that's dumping data into
a fifo at high speed (maybe 500Mbps) and a tar process that's
untarring
Hi,
While testing with my Ceph cluster I saw some btrfs messages:
http://pastebin.com/URN3ShVb
I'm not sure when these messages came up (What state of the OSD).
To keep up with the recent btrfs changes I'm using Josef's btrfs-work
repository ( aba63cd31ab85e3ec7e9805fadc77dad8b7fc945 ) with the
Hi,
While updating my fedora rawhide installation, I got the Ooops listed
at the end of the Email.
Is this a known bug (I didn't find anything specific), or should I file a bug?
Thank you in advance, Clemens
Feb 10 10:59:45 testbox kernel: [ 524.495751] BUG: unable to handle
kernel NULL
Excerpts from Clemens Eisserer's message of 2011-02-11 18:05:55 -0500:
Hi,
While updating my fedora rawhide installation, I got the Ooops listed
at the end of the Email.
Is this a known bug (I didn't find anything specific), or should I file a bug?
Thank you in advance, Clemens
I think
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Lutomirski's message of 2011-02-11 10:08:52 -0500:
As I type this, I have an ssh process running that's dumping data into
a fifo at high speed (maybe 500Mbps) and a tar process that's
untarring
16 matches
Mail list logo
