(2011/05/31 15:13), liubo wrote:
On 05/31/2011 12:31 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
(2011/05/31 10:13), Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2011-05-30 20:27:51 -0400:
The panic occurred when 'btrfs fi bal /test5' was executed.
/test5 is as follows:
# mount -o
Hi
I seem to be able to get btrfs reproducibly to
produce warnings and finally hang when running
a stress test on a ramdisk.
Testing was done using the integration-test
branch of btrfs-unstable. Note that I also tested
v2.6.39 and integration-test took much longer to
hang i.e. it is an
Yesterday, I compiled the new kernel 3.0rc1 from git, but I never
successed to go over the point: Removing old temporary files.
Pressing control-c let me boot on, but the pc was the complete time on
very high load. It took me minutes, just to reach the tty login - and
again minutes after login in,
Excerpts from Sascha Biermanns's message of 2011-05-31 04:12:58 -0400:
Yesterday, I compiled the new kernel 3.0rc1 from git, but I never
successed to go over the point: Removing old temporary files.
Pressing control-c let me boot on, but the pc was the complete time on
very high load. It took
Am 31.05.2011 10:18, schrieb Chris Mason:
Excerpts from Sascha Biermanns's message of 2011-05-31 04:12:58 -0400:
Yesterday, I compiled the new kernel 3.0rc1 from git, but I never
successed to go over the point: Removing old temporary files.
Pressing control-c let me boot on, but the pc was the
Hello Chris
On 30.05.2011 21:03, Chris Mason wrote:
How big is the FS?
About 100 G on a 500 G partition. I would only like to recover some
plain text files from it (source code),
I don't need the partition to be mountable again.
What command did you use to overwrite the super
block?
2011-05-27 13:49:52 +0200, Andreas Philipp:
[...]
Thanks, I can understand that. What I don't get is how one creates
a subvol with a top-level other than 5. I might be missing the
obvious, though.
If I do:
btrfs sub create A btrfs sub create A/B btrfs sub snap A A/B/C
A, A/B,
This series aims to clean up passing of struct btrfs_root and struct
btrfs_fs_info. It first removes the root pointer from functions and macros
where it's not needed, afterwards it passes fs_info instead of root to
functions which only need root-fs_info.
It is based on 3.0-rc1.
These patches are
The following functions had a struct btrfs_root * parameter which went
unused:
btrfs_set_block_group_rw
btrfs_destroy_delayed_refs
btrfs_csum_data
extent_data_ref_count
copy_to_sk
Signed-off-by: Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net
---
fs/btrfs/compression.c |3 +--
fs/btrfs/ctree.c
btrfs_test_opt only needs fs_info from the root passed. So just pass
the fs_info directly.
Signed-off-by: Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h|2 +-
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |8 +++---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 55
3/3 doesn't seem to arrive anymore, possibly due to a mail size
restriction on vger (yes, it is big). So I pushed it out to:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arne/btrfs-unstable-arne.git
root-eliminate
Thanks,
Arne
On 31.05.2011 12:16, Arne Jansen wrote:
This series aims to clean
On 05/30/2011 07:12 AM, Elric Milon wrote:
On Monday 23 May 2011 21:51:57 Josef Bacik wrote:
On 05/23/2011 07:57 AM, Elric Milon wrote:
On Monday 16 May 2011 18:28:49 you wrote:
On 05/16/2011 11:01 AM, Whirm wrote:
On Monday 16 May 2011 16:11:19 Josef Bacik wrote:
Sorry yes, I meant this
On 10 April 2011 16:29, Daniel J Blueman daniel.blue...@gmail.com wrote:
When rebooting from a crash, thus during log replay on 2.6.29-rc2,
btrfs_insert_dir_item caused an assertion failure [1]. The fs was
being mounted clear_cache on an SSD.
On 3.0-rc1 with a fresh filesystem, after a few
wrap checking of filesystem 'closing' flag and fix a few missing memory
barriers.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
based on 'for-linus' branch of mason/btrfs-unstable.git
fs/btrfs/ctree.h|9 +
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |3 +--
fs/btrfs/file.c
commit 4cb5300bc (Btrfs: add mount -o auto_defrag) accesses inode
number directly while it should use the helper with the new inode
number allocator.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
fs/btrfs/file.c |2 +-
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c |7 ---
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Stephane Chazelas
stephane_chaze...@yahoo.fr wrote:
2011-05-27 13:49:52 +0200, Andreas Philipp:
[...]
Thanks, I can understand that. What I don't get is how one creates
a subvol with a top-level other than 5. I might be missing the
obvious, though.
If I
both patches are pushed to
git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/btrfs-unstable.git #fixes
david
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 07:08:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
commit 4cb5300bc (Btrfs: add mount -o auto_defrag) accesses inode
number directly while it should use the helper with the new inode
number
Hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:36:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
After merging the Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76:26: warning: 'btrfs_root_attrs' defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97:26: warning:
2011/5/30 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com:
Ok, so I think we're blowing past the end of the page we've kmap'd. But
I don't think that can happen without something like the patch below
triggering:
Quick update: after rm of ~10 GB of data, I rebooted with Linus' latest
git tree, and it works
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31.05.2011 19:40, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Stephane Chazelas
stephane_chaze...@yahoo.fr wrote:
2011-05-27 13:49:52 +0200, Andreas Philipp: [...]
Thanks, I can understand that. What I don't get is how one
Some clarifications:
Patchset based on 'tmp' branch e6bd18d8938986c997c45f0ea95b221d4edec095.
All patches are against btrfs-progs.
The rest of rambling is about kernel code, which handles supers.
I have read what I've wrote last night (braindump of insane!)
and will try to elaborate a
With xfstest 254 I can panic the box every time with the inode number caching
stuff on. This is because we clean the inodes out when we delete the subvolume,
but then we write out the inode cache which adds an inode to the subvolume inode
tree, and then when it gets evicted again the root gets
Hi,
(2011/05/31 19:16), Arne Jansen wrote:
The following functions had a struct btrfs_root * parameter which went
unused:
btrfs_set_block_group_rw
btrfs_destroy_delayed_refs
btrfs_csum_data
extent_data_ref_count
copy_to_sk
Signed-off-by: Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net
---
23 matches
Mail list logo
