Hello Jan,
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 07:44 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
Thanks, v2 to come.
Uh, but not immediately. I didn't get tracking of exclusive right. That will
need some time to fix and test.
'exclusive' adds the complexity of btrfs qgroup.
So if you send V2. I'd like you add more
v1-v2:
Accepts the review comments from David
Accepts the review comments from Stefan
Rebase changes
Adds the 10/11 and 11/11 which was outside this patch-set
Anand Jain (11):
btrfs-progs: root_item generation_v2 is out of sync after btrfsck
btrfs-progs: no
reproducing steps:
mkfs.btrfs /dev/dm-2 -f
mount /dev/dm-2 /btrfs
umount /btrfs
btrfs check /dev/dm-2 --repair
mount /dev/dm-2 /btrfs
btrfs: mismatching generation and generation_v2 found in root item. This root
was probably mounted with an older kernel. Resetting all new fields.
Having no balance running/ paused/completed is a normal
situation, so the current output message should be positive
with return val zero.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
cmds-balance.c | 16 +---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
In the cases where one of the disk is not suitable for
btrfs, then we would fail the mkfs, however we determine
that after we have written btrfs to the preceding disks.
At this time if user changes mind for not to use btrfs
will left with no choice.
So this patch will check if all the provided
and get_btrfs_mount has replaced it
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
utils.c | 35 ---
1 file changed, 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
index 67419da..926421c 100644
--- a/utils.c
+++ b/utils.c
@@ -977,41 +977,6 @@
a very trivial fix
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
cmds-scrub.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-scrub.c b/cmds-scrub.c
index 5922361..c0dc584 100644
--- a/cmds-scrub.c
+++ b/cmds-scrub.c
@@ -1465,7 +1465,7 @@ out:
}
static
If one of the copy of the superblock is zero it does not
confirm to us that btrfs isn't there on that disk. When
we are having more than one copy of superblock we should
rather let the for loop to continue to check other copies.
the following test case and results would justify the
fix
We should avoid using non multi-path (mp) path for mp disks
As of now there is no good way (like api) to check that.
A workaround way is to check if the O_EXCL open is unsuccessful.
This is safe since otherwise the BTRFS_IOC_SCAN_DEV ioctl would
fail if the disk-path can not be opened with the
when we have to report no such file error for
/dev/btrfs-control we could confirm if btrfs kernel
is present and report it and skip registration
where appropriate
v1-v2: use /proc/filesystems to check if the btrfs
is present
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
cmds-device.c | 60
Trivial patch:
./btrfs-progs/btrfs-select-super -s 0 /dev/sdc
using SB copy 0, bytenr 65536
No valid Btrfs found on /dev/sdc
Open ctree failed
The line 'using..' is confusing which gives an
indication that command is successful
This patch will avoid that when command fails
Signed-off-by: Anand
as of now in replace command target dev is being checked
for mounted and for existing fs, however there is newly
introduced test_dev_for_mkfs in mkfs.c which is suitable
for this job, and further it also checks if dev can be
opened for with O_EXCL. Its better to use test_dev_for_mkfs
A trivial fix: To match the events inside to what
being printed out
before:
::
adding device /dev/dm-3 id 2
adding device /dev/dm-4 id 3
adding device /dev/dm-5 id 4
fs created label (null) on /dev/dm-2
nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sectorsize 4096 size 213.20GB
Btrfs v0.20-rc1-235-gdd21bc1
Oh. this title prefix should be v2 not RESEND.
v1-v2
Accepts David review comments
Thanks, Anand
On 04/15/2013 02:38 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
Having no balance running/ paused/completed is a normal
situation, so the current output message should be positive
with return val zero.
On 04/13/2013 12:06 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:54:57PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
In the cases where one of the disk is not suitable for
btrfs, then we would fail the mkfs, however we determine
that after we have written btrfs to the preceding disks.
At this time if user
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 08:08 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Jan,
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 07:44 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
Thanks, v2 to come.
Uh, but not immediately. I didn't get tracking of exclusive right. That
will
need some time to fix and test.
'exclusive' adds the
when we have to report no such file error for
/dev/btrfs-control we could confirm if btrfs kernel
is present and report it and skip registration
where appropriate
v2-v3:
accept review comments from David
v1-v2: use /proc/filesystems to check if the btrfs
is present
Signed-off-by: Anand
Hello Jan,
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 08:08 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Jan,
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 07:44 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
Thanks, v2 to come.
Uh, but not immediately. I didn't get tracking of exclusive right. That
will
need some time to fix and test.
'exclusive'
If out of memory happens, we should return -ENOMEM directly to the caller
rather than continue the work.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/backref.c |6 --
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
On 15.04.2013 12:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs disk
mount disk mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable mnt
btrfs qgroup create 0/5 mnt
btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5 mnt
rm -f /mnt/data
Hello Arne,
On 15.04.2013 12:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs disk
mount disk mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable mnt
btrfs qgroup create 0/5 mnt
btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5 mnt
rm -f
On 15.04.2013 13:43, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Arne,
On 15.04.2013 12:37, Wang Shilong wrote:
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs disk
mount disk mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable mnt
btrfs qgroup create 0/5 mnt
btrfs qgroup
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:57:50 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
In trying to track down a weird tree log problem I wanted to make sure that
the
free space cache was actually valid, which we currently have no way of doing.
So this patch adds a bunch of support for the free space cache code and then a
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@fujitsu.com
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs disk
mount disk mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable mnt
btrfs qgroup create 0/5 mnt
btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5 mnt
rm -f
I am sorry, please ignore this…I will resend it..
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@fujitsu.com
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs disk
mount disk mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable mnt
btrfs qgroup create 0/5 mnt
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs disk
mount disk mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=1M count=10
sync
btrfs quota enable mnt
btrfs qgroup create 0/5 mnt
btrfs qgroup limit 5M 0/5 mnt
rm -f
Hi all,
When I created my btrfs filesystem, I use the command:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0 /dev/sda5 /dev/sdb5
# btrfs fi df /srv/raid0/
Data, RAID0: total=1.92TB, used=1.46TB
System, RAID1: total=32.00MB, used=164.00KB
System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
Metadata, RAID1: total=39.26GB,
Hi,
I thought that I would attempt a quick little patch that will make btrfsck into
a No-op when called as fsck.btrfsck.
The reasoning is that the FAQ states that it is recommended and safe to do so,
and the current 12.04 version of Ubuntu just symlinks fsck.btrfsck to btrfsck
instead of
As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath danmcgrath...@gmail.com
---
btrfs.c |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
index 691adef..78161a9 100644
--- a/btrfs.c
+++ b/btrfs.c
@@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ int
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dan McGrath danmcgrath...@gmail.com wrote:
As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath danmcgrath...@gmail.com
---
btrfs.c |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
My sincere apologies. It would appear that I was overly careful about
checking the binary functioned when called as a symlink, but not the
correct filename:
# ls -l `which fsck.btrfs`
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Aug 25 2011 /sbin/fsck.btrfs - btrfsck
So yes, the patch incorrectly assumed a
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:55:45AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
@@ -2563,6 +2568,12 @@ static noinline long btrfs_ioctl_clone(struct file
*file, unsigned long srcfd,
!IS_ALIGNED(destoff, bs))
goto out_unlock;
+ /* verify if ranges are overlapped within the same file */
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:38:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
+/* Checks the status of the balance if any
+ * return codes:
+ * -1 : Error failed to know if there is any pending balance
+ * 1 : Successful to know status of a pending balance
+ * 0 : When there is no pending balance or
On 4/15/13 9:03 AM, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dan McGrath danmcgrath...@gmail.com wrote:
As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath danmcgrath...@gmail.com
---
btrfs.c |2 ++
1 file changed,
Jan,
I got a chance to sit down and dig a little bit deeper into
`fsck.xfs`. Here is what I discovered.
The (a|A|y|p) options in the XFS script appear to be nothing more
than the expected `fsck` options that imply automated checks (as is
clearly implied by the use of AUTO). While I have yet to
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:01:19PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 4/11/13 5:35 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
Now, we set incompat flag EXTEND_IREF when we actually need insert a
extend inode reference, not when making a fs. But some users may hope
that the fs still can be mounted on the old kernel,
On 4/15/13 11:45 AM, Dan McGrath wrote:
Jan,
I got a chance to sit down and dig a little bit deeper into
`fsck.xfs`. Here is what I discovered.
The (a|A|y|p) options in the XFS script appear to be nothing more
than the expected `fsck` options that imply automated checks (as is
clearly
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:01:19PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 4/11/13 5:35 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
Now, we set incompat flag EXTEND_IREF when we actually need insert a
extend inode reference, not when making a fs. But some users may hope
that the fs still can be mounted on the old kernel,
Jan,
It would appear that:
# fsck -- --repair /dev/storage/lv_btrfs
doesn't work, but if I put the fs-specific-options at the end:
# fsck /dev/storage/lv_btrfs -- --repair
it works fine. As we were/are discussing on irc, I also have no idea
where the ext4 lines come from. *scratcheshead*
Anyways, thought I would reply back with some insight on the matter
and see what others had to say, since I am in no position to dictate
the direction that brtfsck/fsck.btrfs should take as far as wrapper
script or no is concerned. Look forward to your replies! o/
FWIW: debian has been
Hello everyone,
I've ran into problems with _very_ slow unmounting of my btrfs-formatted
backup volume. I have a suspicion what might be the cause but maybe
someone with more experience with the btrfs code could enlighten me
whether it is actually correct.
The situation is the following: I
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:51AM +0200, Ochi wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've ran into problems with _very_ slow unmounting of my
btrfs-formatted backup volume. I have a suspicion what might be
the cause but maybe someone with more experience with the btrfs code
could enlighten me whether it
Having no balance running/ paused/completed is a normal
situation, so the current output message should be positive
with return val zero.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
cmds-balance.c | 18 ++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git
On 04/16/2013 12:21 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:38:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
+/* Checks the status of the balance if any
+ * return codes:
+ * -1 : Error failed to know if there is any pending balance
+ * 1 : Successful to know status of a pending balance
+ *
Argument 'trans' is not used in fixup_low_keys(). So, remove it.
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 18 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
index ca9d8f1..b5eec7c 100644
---
If argument 'trans' is unnecessary in the function where
fixup_low_keys() is called, 'trans' is deleted.
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 28
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 10 +++---
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 11
Argument 'trans' is not used in btrfs_extend_item().
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 3 +--
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 3 +--
fs/btrfs/dir-item.c| 2 +-
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 4 ++--
fs/btrfs/file-item.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/inode-item.c | 4
Argument 'trans' became unnecessary from setup_inline_extent_backref()
that called btrfs_extend_item().
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
48 matches
Mail list logo
