* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So an error message like
>
>warning: ISO C90 requires array sizes to be constant-expressions
>
> would be technically correct and useful from a portability angle. It
> tells you when you're doing something non-portable, and should be
> automatically enabled with "
Dear All,
Following a physical disk failure of a RAID1 array, I tried to mount
the remaining volume of a root partition with "-o degraded". For some
reason it ended up as read-only as described here:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas#raid1_volumes_only_mountable_once_RW_if_degraded
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:28:08PM +0700, Andreas Hild wrote:
> Following a physical disk failure of a RAID1 array, I tried to mount
> the remaining volume of a root partition with "-o degraded". For some
> reason it ended up as read-only as described here:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php
On 03/10/2018 03:29 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-10 at 14:04 +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> So for OLTP workloads you definitely want nodatacow enabled, bear in
>> mind this also disables crc checksumming, but your db engine should
>> already have such functionality imple
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> BTW., while I fully agree with everything you said, it's not entirely correct
> to
> claim that if a C compiler can generate VLA code it is necessarily able to
> parse
> and evaluate constant array sizes "just fine".
>
> Constant expression
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 18:51 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>
> COW is needed to properly checksum the data. Otherwise is not
> possible to ensure the coherency between data and checksum (however I
> have to point out that BTRFS fails even in this case [*]).
> We could rearrange this sentence, s
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 01:10:30PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
> > (e.g. "char foo[max(sizeof(struct1), sizeof(struct2))]", the compiler
> > thinks this is a dynamic cal
On 2018年03月10日 21:54, Anand Jain wrote:
> btrfs inspect dump-tree cli picks the disk with the largest generation
> to read the root tree, even when all the devices were not provided in
> the cli. But in 2 disks RAID1 you may need to know what's in the disks
> individually, so this option -x | --n
On 3/7/18 9:40 PM, je...@suse.com wrote:
> From: Jeff Mahoney
> diff --git a/cmds-inspect.c b/cmds-inspect.c
> index afd7fe48..12f200b3 100644
> --- a/cmds-inspect.c
> +++ b/cmds-inspect.c
> @@ -625,33 +629,27 @@ static int cmd_inspect_min_dev_size(int argc, char
> **argv)
> out:
> return
On 3/7/18 9:40 PM, je...@suse.com wrote:
> diff --git a/cmds-filesystem.c b/cmds-filesystem.c
> index 62112705..ec038f2f 100644
> --- a/cmds-filesystem.c
> +++ b/cmds-filesystem.c
> @@ -1075,6 +1078,7 @@ next:
>
> return !!defrag_global_errors;
> }
> +static DEFINE_SIMPLE_COMMAND(filesyste
Commit 9d015c984006 ("btrfs-progs: Limit inline extent below page size")
tries to fix the convert problem which we could create large inline file
extent but kernel can't hanle.
This leads the false alert about fsck test case 020.
And after discussion about the problem in the mail list, we still
n
Adam Borowski posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 18:47:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:28:08PM +0700, Andreas Hild wrote:
>> Following a physical disk failure of a RAID1 array, I tried to mount
>> the remaining volume of a root partition with "-o degraded". For some
>> reason it ended
12 matches
Mail list logo
