On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> messages.h:49:24: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an 'if'
> statement [-Wempty-body]
> PRINT_TRACE_ON_ERROR;\
>
> Just extra braces would solve the problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
> ---
>
On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The only hit is the following code:
>
> tlv_len = le16_to_cpu(tlv_hdr->tlv_len);
>
> if (tlv_type == 0 || tlv_type > BTRFS_SEND_A_MAX
> || tlv_len > BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE) {
>
On 2018/11/16 下午4:13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> The only location is the following code:
>>
>> int level = path->lowest_level + 1;
>> BUG_ON(path->lowest_level + 1 >= BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL);
>> while(level < BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL) {
>>
On 11/15/2018 11:41 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:22:15PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
v1->v2:
2/9: Drop writeback required
3/9: Drop writeback required
7/9: Use the condition within the WARN_ON()
6/9: Use the condition within the ASSERT()
Replace-start and
On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Although most fallthrough case is pretty obvious, we still need to teach
> the dumb compiler that it's an explicit fallthrough.
>
> Also reformat the code to use common indent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
Is this
The following missing prototypes will be fixed:
1) btrfs.c::handle_special_globals()
2) check/mode-lowmem.c::repair_ternary_lowmem()
3) extent-tree.c::btrfs_search_overlap_extent()
Above 3 can be fixed by making them static
4) utils.c::btrfs_check_nodesize()
Fixed by moving it to
On 16.11.18 г. 10:22 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> GCC 8.2.1 will report the following warning with "make W=1":
>
> ctree.c: In function 'btrfs_next_sibling_tree_block':
> ctree.c:2990:21: warning: 'slot' may be used uninitialized in this function
> [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>
On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Add __attribute__ ((format (printf, 4, 0))) to fix the vprintf calling
> function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
> ---
> string-table.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/string-table.c
On 16.11.18 г. 10:04 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The following missing prototypes will be fixed:
> 1) btrfs.c::handle_special_globals()
> 2) check/mode-lowmem.c::repair_ternary_lowmem()
> 3) extent-tree.c::btrfs_search_overlap_extent()
> Above 3 can be fixed by making them static
>
> 4)
On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The only location is the following code:
>
> int level = path->lowest_level + 1;
> BUG_ON(path->lowest_level + 1 >= BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL);
> while(level < BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL) {
> slot = path->slots[level] + 1;
>
On 11/16/2018 06:29 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 11/15/2018 11:31 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:22:23PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
As of now only user requested replace cancel can cancel the
replace-scrub
so no need to log error for it.
This has probably some user
Under most case, we are just using 'int' for 'unsigned int', and doesn't
care about the sign.
The Wsign-compare is causing tons of false alerts.
Suppressing it would make W=1 less noisy.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
changelog:
v1.1:
Use cc-disable-warning to provide much better compatibility
On 2018/11/16 下午4:04, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 16.11.18 г. 9:54 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Although most fallthrough case is pretty obvious, we still need to teach
>> the dumb compiler that it's an explicit fallthrough.
>>
>> Also reformat the code to use common indent.
>>
>>
GCC 8.2.1 will report the following warning with "make W=1":
ctree.c: In function 'btrfs_next_sibling_tree_block':
ctree.c:2990:21: warning: 'slot' may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
path->slots[level] = slot;
~~~^~
The culprit is
On 11/16/2018 03:51 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 15.11.18 г. 20:39 ч., Juan Alberto Cirez wrote:
Is BTRFS mature enough to be deployed on a production system to underpin
the storage layer of a 16+ ipcameras-based NVR (or VMS if you prefer)?
Based on our limited experience with BTRFS (1+
On 11/15/2018 11:31 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:22:23PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
As of now only user requested replace cancel can cancel the replace-scrub
so no need to log error for it.
This has probably some user visible effect or threre are steps to
reproduce the
From: Filipe Manana
Commit d7396f07358a ("Btrfs: optimize key searches in btrfs_search_slot"),
dated from August 2013, introduced an optimization to search for keys in a
node/leaf to both btrfs_search_slot() and btrfs_search_old_slot(). For the
later, it ended up being reverted in commit
On 11/15/2018 11:35 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:22:22PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
When we successfully cancel the replace its scrub returns -ECANCELED,
which then passed to btrfs_dev_replace_finishing(), it cleans up based
on the scrub returned status and propagates the
On 2018-11-15 13:39, Juan Alberto Cirez wrote:
Is BTRFS mature enough to be deployed on a production system to underpin
the storage layer of a 16+ ipcameras-based NVR (or VMS if you prefer)?
For NVR, I'd say no. BTRFS does pretty horribly with append-only
workloads, even if they are WORM
From: Filipe Manana
We can have a lot freed extents during the life span of transaction, so
the red black tree that keeps track of the ranges of each freed extent
(fs_info->freed_extents[]) can get quite big. When finishing a transaction
commit we find each range, process it (discard the
On 16.11.18 г. 15:04 ч., fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> We can have a lot freed extents during the life span of transaction, so
> the red black tree that keeps track of the ranges of each freed extent
> (fs_info->freed_extents[]) can get quite big. When finishing a
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 02:43:16PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> While investigating the balance hang I came across various inconsistencies in
> the source. This series aims to fix those.
>
> The first patch is (I believe) a fix to a longstanding bug that could cause
> balance to fail due to
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 08:06:36PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 11/15/2018 11:35 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:22:22PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >> When we successfully cancel the replace its scrub returns -ECANCELED,
> >> which then passed to
On 16.11.18 г. 17:18 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 02:43:16PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> While investigating the balance hang I came across various inconsistencies
>> in
>> the source. This series aims to fix those.
>>
>> The first patch is (I believe) a fix to a
Hi,
a few days ago my root file system (simple btrfs on a SSD, no RAID or anything)
suddenly became read only.
Looking at dmsg, I found this:
[ 19.285020] BTRFS error (device sda2): bad tree block start, want 705757184
have 82362368
[ 19.285042] BTRFS: error (device sda2) in
On 16.11.18 г. 18:17 ч., Stephan Olbrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a few days ago my root file system (simple btrfs on a SSD, no RAID or
> anything) suddenly became read only.
> Looking at dmsg, I found this:
>
> [ 19.285020] BTRFS error (device sda2): bad tree block start, want
> 705757184 have
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM Juan Alberto Cirez
wrote:
>
> Is BTRFS mature enough to be deployed on a production system to underpin
> the storage layer of a 16+ ipcameras-based NVR (or VMS if you prefer)?
>
> Based on our limited experience with BTRFS (1+ year) under the above
> scenario the
On 10/26/2018 07:43 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
btrfs_can_relocate returns 0 when it concludes the given chunk can be
relocated and -1 otherwise. Since this function is used as a predicated
and it return a binary value it makes no sense to have it's return
value as an int so change it to bool.
On 10/26/2018 07:43 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
It's unnecessary to check map->stripes[i].dev for NULL given its value
is already set and dereferenced above the the check. No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain
Thanks, Anand
---
On 10/26/2018 07:43 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
lock_delalloc_pages should only return 2 values - 0 in case of success
and -EAGAIN if the range of pages to be locked should be shrunk due to
some of gone. Manual inspections confirms that this is
indeed the case since __process_pages_contig is
On 10/26/2018 07:43 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
All callers of this function pass BTRFS_MAX_EXTENT_SIZE (128M) so let's
reduce the argument count and make that a local variable. No functional
changes.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain
Thanks, Anand
---
31 matches
Mail list logo
