On 15/03/2021 13:53, Naohiro Aota wrote:
The following patch will change the superblock logging zones' location from
fixed zone number to fixed LBAs.
Here is a background of how the superblock is working on zoned btrfs.
This document will be promoted to btrfs-dev-docs in the future.
# Superblo
On 2021/3/29 上午4:02, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
On 21/03/25 09:16PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2021/3/25 下午8:20, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 3:17 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
This patchset can be fetched from the following github repo, along with
the full subpage RW support:
https://github.co
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:02 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Can you post the output from both:
>
> btrfs insp dump-t -b 1144783093760 /dev/dm-0
> btrfs insp dump-t -b 1144881201152 /dev/dm-0
I'm not sure if those dumps will contain filenames, so check them.
It's ok to remove filenames before posting
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:41 AM B A wrote:
>
> Dear btrfs experts,
>
>
> On my desktop PC, I have 1 btrfs partition on a single SSD device with 3
> subvolumes (/, /home, /var). Whenever I boot my PC, after logging in to
> GNOME, the btrfs partition is being remounted as ro due to errors. This is
On 2021/03/27 0:34, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Non-partitionable devices, like zoned block devices, aren't showing up in in
> /proc/partitions and therefore we cannot rely on it to get a device's size.
>
> Use blockdev --getsz to get the block device size.
>
> Cc: Naohiro Aota
> Signed-off-by:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 2:48 PM Oleksandr Natalenko
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 05:48:01PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >> ERROR: modpost: "ZSTD_maxCLevel" [fs/f2fs/f2fs.ko] undefined!
>
> Since f2fs can be built as a module, the following correction seems to
> be needed:
On 21/03/25 09:16PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/3/25 下午8:20, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 3:17 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > >
> > > This patchset can be fetched from the following github repo, along with
> > > the full subpage RW support:
> > > https://github.com/adam900710/linux/t
On 28.03.2021 15:28, Zoltán wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have read a lot of caveats about interpreting the free space
> reported for btrfs volumes, but could not find anything about the
> perceived inconsistency in the disk usage reporting described below.
>
> I have a btrfs volume with about 135GiB used f
Dear btrfs experts,
On my desktop PC, I have 1 btrfs partition on a single SSD device with 3
subvolumes (/, /home, /var). Whenever I boot my PC, after logging in to GNOME,
the btrfs partition is being remounted as ro due to errors. This is the dmesg
output at that time:
> [ 616.155392] BTRFS
Hi,
I have read a lot of caveats about interpreting the free space
reported for btrfs volumes, but could not find anything about the
perceived inconsistency in the disk usage reporting described below.
I have a btrfs volume with about 135GiB used for data, as reported by
`df`, `btrfs fi show` and
Hi,
> kmem_cache_zalloc() without __GFP_NOFAIL may fail.
>
> btrfs use kmem_cache_zalloc() with GFP_NOFS mostly,
> and only few place with __GFP_NOFAIL.
>
> xfs use kmem_cache_zalloc() with __GFP_NOFAIL mostly.
>
> It is very difficult to test all case of failure in kmem_cache_zalloc() .
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
