On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 12:09 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/10/2011 05:52 PM, Marek Otahal wrote:
On Friday 10 of June 2011 16:52:36 Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/10/2011 02:43 PM, Marek Otahal wrote:
On Friday 10 of June 2011 15:33:20 Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/09/2011 10:06 PM, Daniel J
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 04:44 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Oh, the dirty little secret of loop devices is they don't actually write
things to disk properly. They are not power off safe. But you can
trigger this without a loop device, correct?
Yes. I would have liked to reproduce it last night
: Assertion `!(found-total_bytes
found-bytes_used)' failed.
I can mount it read-only though and read certain things out of it. But
when I boot from it, I hit the BUG().
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 20:43 -0700, Daniel Taylor wrote:
There is also the issue of btrfs over RAID (which I know is not
entirely sensible, but which will happen).
Well, we could discourage that by merging the RAID support that's been
pending for a while but I suspect Chris is a bit busy
/commitdiff/3885963f
http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git/commitdiff/3de9680a
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:02 +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Is raid[56] coming to btrfs? There was some talk about it a year back
or so, but I haven't seen anything yet
Um, there was some talk about it about four days ago. You even
participated in that thread!
As it stands, it has the
(struct bio *bio, int err)
{
struct btrfs_raid_multi_bio *rmult = bio-bi_private;
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
().
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info
RAID50/60 support, and with hpa's help I'll extend
it to do RAID7/70 too -- but you're not waiting for that, are you?
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from
to
take a look at http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git and
attempt to convince me that I should be reusing more?
Criticism in 'diff -up' form is always welcome... :)
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:53 AM, David Woodhousedw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 11:49 -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Cost, yes, of changing an on-disk format.
Personally, I don't care about that -- I'm utterly uninterested in the
, and failing the bio with
-EIO. But then we were using the stale buffers anyway. This patch fixes
a couple of places where we do that, and gives me a much saner failure
mode. There are probably other places which need a similar fix.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
diff --git
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
This hack serves two purposes:
- It does actually write parity (and RAID6 syndrome) blocks so that I
can implement and test the recovery.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 1f509ab..a23510b 100644
--- a/fs
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 15:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 15:39 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
This is a preliminary attempt to add RAID5 and RAID6 support.
Matching btrfs-progs patch...
And this makes it actually write the P and Q stripes...
These patches at git
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 15:39 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
This is a preliminary attempt to add RAID5 and RAID6 support.
So far it doesn't attempt to write or read the parity blocks -- it
just
lays the data blocks out as we want them, so it's effectively just a
complex and wasteful kind
in the stripe-set, if we can't manage that).
So hopefully most of this code can go away in the end -- although some
of it may be cannibalised to handle rebuilding after a disk replacement.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
---
fs/btrfs/Kconfig |1 +
fs/btrfs/volumes.c
.
But I don't believe we have yet implemented anything to let you
_replace_ a failed disk and recreate its original contents.
I had that on my TODO list for some time after I get the basic RAID[56]
operation working.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git?a=commitdiff;h=93562d49
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body
We'll want to use these in btrfs too.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
---
drivers/md/Kconfig |5 +-
drivers/md/Makefile | 76 -
lib/Kconfig |3 +
lib
, WRITE,
bytenr, map_length, multi, 0);
if (!ret) {
struct btrfs_bio_stripe *stripe = multi-stripes;
--
1.6.2.5
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com
copies. So listing more blocks than we need
is actually OK.
With RAID[56] we're going to throw away an entire stripe for each block
we have to ignore, so we _are_ going to list blocks other than the
ones which actually contain the superblock.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho
;
*naddrs = nr;
- *stripe_len = map-stripe_len;
+ *stripe_len = rmap_len;
free_extent_map(em);
return 0;
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe
to discard every stripe of a
RAID1 rather than only one of them?
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body
an
initrd and doesn't have to live in the kernel.
Mount by UUID for other file systems is already handled by initrd; the
kernel can't do it for itself.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
---
fs/btrfs/crc32c.h | 29 -
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |4 ++--
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |1 -
fs/btrfs/hash.h|4 ++--
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644
be
used where available.
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu herb...@gondor.apana.org.au
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:30 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 00:19 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:11 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
How does this enable the HW crc32c? Unless I'm missing something you're
doing crc32c instead of btrfs_crc32c
cunning plan.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
to give you optimisations that strict-aliasing can't.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message
policy of PR# or explanation for 'uninline' too.
I don't think we should just give up on GCC ever getting it right. That
way lies madness. As we've often found in the past.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com
.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
to the userspace utilities though, in
Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt
I think you can drop your own copy of the GPL too.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 04:20 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
this now makes use of autoconf/automake/libtool suite,
Please, God, no.
I will personally buy a licence for GNU make for anyone who needs one.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL
were you doing at the time?
Just using CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and dirtying a bunch of pages from
different inodes seems enough. Another patch to add to my collection at
git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-kernel-unstable.git ...
From: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:45:16
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 12:51 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
The patch below works OK, but doesn't yet handle
subvolumes -- it gives the same fsid for all subvolumes.
Is this the correct fix?
diff --git a/super.c b/super.c
index 6446ab7..55f4d00 100644
--- a/super.c
+++ b/super.c
@@ -503,6
won't happen.
Ok, that's fine then. I've removed the WARN_ON() from the patch in my
git tree. This is what I have outstanding for you at
git://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-kernel-unstable:
Balaji Rao (2):
Introduce btrfs_iget helper
NFS support for btrfs - v3
David Woodhouse (7
;
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 16:32 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 21:20 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:47 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Lets pretend I had put in commments something like the code below.
The important part is that directories have only one
to
do.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:51 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:46:46PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
+static inline struct dentry *d_obtain_alias(struct inode *inode)
+{
+ struct dentry *d = d_alloc_anon(inode);
+ if (!d)
+ iput(inode);
+ return
*/
if (new root != sub_root) {
igrab(inode);
sub_root-inode = inode;
do_orphan = 1;
}
... should also be fine when the inode is unlocked, too.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 10:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
/* the inode and parent dir are two different roots */
if (new root != sub_root) {
igrab(inode);
sub_root-inode = inode;
do_orphan
routine,
change fh_type, store parent's root object ID where needed]
Signed-off-by: Balaji Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This replaces patch 2 of the sequence I sent out yesterday; the other
two patches remain the same.
Makefile |2
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
inode.c | 104 +-
1 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/inode.c b/inode.c
index 5344526..faa5543 100644
--- a/inode.c
+++ b/inode.c
@@ -1956,7 +1956,8
4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:37 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
If you can reliably reproduce this, please try with the spin locks
instead of rcu read locks. What were you doing at the time?
Just copying a bunch of files into it so that I could test NFS
readdirplus with the following:
, I can perhaps move on to doing
something more useful with it... :)
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 06:21 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
What kind of box is this? The current code should be fine on big
endian, but that hasn't been tested recently.
It's a PowerBook (ppc32).
The bug is a BUG_ON(spin_trylock(tree-lock)) in
lookup_extent_mapping() -- I didn't think endianness
On uniprocessor kernels without spinlock debugging, spinlock operations
are all no-ops and spin_trylock() will always succeed.
These BUG_ON() sanity checks are effectively an unconditional BUG() in
that case.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/extent_map.c b
, and spin_trylock() _always_ returns 1.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 00:41 +0530, Balaji Rao wrote:
Hi,
There's a problem in btrfs_readdir that tries to lock a root node with one
being held. This happens when NFS calls vfs_readdir function with a nfs
specific filldir function pointer. This filldir function, called with the
lock held
which at least ought to work for
now.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
--
dwmw2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 15:21 +0300, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Hi,
Since btrfs is someday going to be the default FS for Linux, and will
be on so many single disk PCs and laptops, I was thinking it should be
a good idea to insert some redundancy in single disk deployments. Of
course it can help with
53 matches
Mail list logo
