On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 05:48:45PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:00:25PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:00:25PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:47:11AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>> > > Since the
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:00:25PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:47:11AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> > > Since the crash is similar to the call chains from Jeff's report,
>> > > ie.
>> > >
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:00:25PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:47:11AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > Since the crash is similar to the call chains from Jeff's report,
> > > ie.
> > > btrfs_del_csums
> > > -> btrfs_search_slot
> > > -> btrfs_cow_block
> > >
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:47:11AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > Since the crash is similar to the call chains from Jeff's report,
> > ie.
> > btrfs_del_csums
> > -> btrfs_search_slot
> > -> btrfs_cow_block
> > -> btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty
> >
> > I just wonder that whether
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:23:52PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> > Hi Filipe,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:23:52PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > Hi Filipe,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> Hi Filipe,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> > This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
>> >
>> >
Hi Jeff,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:25:54AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 9/6/16 5:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > Hi Filipe,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>> This can only happen
On 9/6/16 5:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> Hi Filipe,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
>>>
>>> Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect
Hi Filipe,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
> >
> > Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has zero item")
>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
>
> Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has zero item")
> assumes that a leaf is its root when leaf->bytenr == btrfs_root_bytenr(root),
>
12 matches
Mail list logo