On 14:26 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:21:59AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > On 13:02 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a rea
On 13:02 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> > Btrfs at the same time? It seems weird to me that adding a feature
>
> btrfs doesn't support DAX. only ext2, ext4, XFS
Hi Shiang,
Thanks for picking up this work.
On 8:20 26/02, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> This patchset is attempt to add CoW support for fsdax, and take XFS,
> which has both reflink and fsdax feature, as an example.
How does this work for read sequence for two different files
mapped to the same extent
On 9:29 02/07, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:57 AM Hyunchul Lee wrote:
> As said I contacted the Debian maintainer via PM and he is thinking of
> taking the maintenance of exfatprogs.
> But he did not do a last decision.
>
> You happen to know what other Linux distributions do in
nd plan to update it today. It is built on v5.3-rcX, so it should
contain the changes which moves the iomap code to the different directory.
I will build the dax patches on top of that.
However, we are making a big dependency chain here :(
--
Goldwyn
>
>
> Goldwyn Rodrigues (3):
&g
Hi Dan/Jerome,
On 12:20 14/02, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:09 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:31:24AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:10 AM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > I am just again working on my struct page mapping
On 10:43 22/01, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 14:29 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 2:00 PM Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 15:34 -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > > > On 13:47 18/12, Mimi Zohar w
policy, causing
the file hash to be calculated on __fput().
Reported-by: Ignaz Forster
Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
---
fs/namei.c| 1 +
include/linux/ima.h | 6 ++
security/integrity
On 14:05 12/12, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/10/18 2:48 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > On 13:19 09/12, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > I have an application that receives spurious EIO when running with
> > > RWF_NOWAIT enabled. Removing RWF_NOWAIT causes those EI
On 13:19 09/12, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I have an application that receives spurious EIO when running with
> RWF_NOWAIT enabled. Removing RWF_NOWAIT causes those EIOs to disappear. The
> application uses AIO+DIO, and errors were seen on both xfs and ext4.
>
>
> I suspect the following code:
>
>
> /
On 20:57 21/11, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:33 PM syzbot
> wrote:
> >
> > syzbot has found a reproducer for the following crash on:
> >
> > HEAD commit:442b8cea2477 Add linux-next specific files for 20181109
> > git tree: linux-next
> > console output: https://syzka
On 05/24/2018 07:08 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Alter the AFS automounting code to create and modify an fs_context struct
> when parameterising a new mount triggered by an AFS mountpoint rather than
> constructing device name and option strings.
>
> Also remove the cell=, vol= and rwpath options
On 05/22/2018 10:32 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/22/18 9:07 AM, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote:
>> From: Adam Manzanares
>>
>> In order to avoid kiocb bloat for per command iopriority support, rw_hint
>> is converted from enum to a u16. Added a guard around ki_hint assignment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by
if (mddev->pers->hot_remove_disk(
> mddev, rdev) == 0) {
> sysfs_unlink_rdev(mddev, rdev);
> + rdev->saved_raid_disk = rdev->raid_disk;
> rdev->raid_disk = -1;
> removed++;
> }
>
Performing a partial resync as opposed to full resync is always better
and less time consuming. Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
--
Goldwyn
On 04/28/2018 12:26 AM, Steve French wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:45:40PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Apr 27, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Steve French wrote:
>
> A
And xfstests generic/471 is passed.
>
> [1]: 6be96d "Introduce RWF_NOWAIT and FMODE_AIO_NOWAIT"
>
> Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - Return EGAIN if dio_rwsem is not lockable in f2f
On 01/30/2018 04:13 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:39:01AM -0800, syzbot wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> syzkaller hit the following crash on
>> 6084b576dca2e898f5c101baef151f7bfdbb606d
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/master
>> compiler: gcc (GCC)
On 12/16/2017 08:49 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>
> On 12/14/2017 09:15 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>> On 12/14/2017 11:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> I'm looking to add support for RWF_NOWAIT within a linux-aio iocb.
>>> Naturally, I need to
On 12/14/2017 11:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I'm looking to add support for RWF_NOWAIT within a linux-aio iocb.
> Naturally, I need to detect at runtime whether the kernel support
> RWF_NOWAIT or not.
>
>
> The only method I could find was to issue an I/O with RWF_NOWAIT set,
> and look for erro
unt().
>
> Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner
> Signed-off-by: Markus Trippelsdorf
Reviewed-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
> ---
> fs/namespace.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index 54059b142d6b..b633838b
enables atomic
> append and pwrite() with offset on a single file descriptor.
>
I think similarly we can introduce RWF_DIRECT, though I am not sure if
users would want to mix buffered writes and direct writes.
Reviewed-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
> Signed-off-by: Jürg Billeter
> ---
>
Hi Jason,
On 07/26/2017 01:45 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In testing nowait aio on ext4, I found that when appending to a file
> the return value is EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK, because as mentioned in the
> commit this will potentially trigger an allocation. However, the EAGAIN,
> seems somewhat mis
On 07/04/2017 05:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Please expedite getting this upstream, asap.
>
Jens,
I have posted an updated patch [1] and it is acked by David. Would you
pick it up or should it go through the btrfs tree (or some other tree)?
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9825813/
-
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Assigning pos for usage early messes up in append mode, where
the pos is re-assigned in generic_write_checks(). Assign
pos later to get the correct position to write from iocb->ki_pos.
Since check_can_nocow also uses the value of pos, we shift
generic_write_che
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Assigning pos for usage early messes up in append mode, where
the pos is re-assigned in generic_write_checks(). Re-assign
pos to get the correct position to write from iocb->ki_pos.
Fixes: edf064e7c6fe ("btrfs: nowait aio support")
Signed-off-by: Gold
On 07/04/2017 02:45 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.07.04 at 06:23 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> commit edf064e7c6fec3646b06c944a8e35d1a3de5c2c3 (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad)
>> Author: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>> Date: Tue Jun 20 07:05:49 2017 -0500
>>
>&
gt; can lead to a NULL-ptr deref everytime shrinker->nr_deferred is referenced.
>
> Fix this by failing to register the filesystem in case there is not enough
> memory to fully construct the shrinker object.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
Looks good, though the situation see
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
On 05/20/2016 03:12 AM, Gang He wrote:
This patch will be used to insure the dlm lockspace is created by kernel
module when mounting a ocfs2 file system. There are two ways to create a
lockspace, from user space and kernel space, but the same name
On 06/12/2015 01:46 PM, David Teigland wrote:
When a node fails, its dirty areas get special treatment from other nodes
using the area_resyncing() function. Should the suspend_list be created
before any reads or writes from the file system are processed by md? It
seems to me that gfs journal
MD-RAID1 device..
On 06/10/2015 10:48 AM, David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:27:27AM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
I thought I answered that:
To use a software RAID1 across multiple nodes of a cluster. Let me
explain in more words..
In a cluster with multiple nodes with a shared
On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, David Teigland wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:33:08PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
some real world utility to warrant the potential maintenance effort.
We do have a valid real world utility. It is to provide
high-availability of RAID1 storage over the cluster
On 06/10/2015 03:00 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
David Lang has already responded: The idea is to use a RAID device
(currently only level 1 mirroring is supported) with multiple nodes of the
cluster.
Here is a description on how to
On 06/09/2015 03:30 PM, David Teigland wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:08:11PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
Hi David,
On 06/09/2015 02:45 PM, David Teigland wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:26:25PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 06/09/2015 01:22 PM, David Teigland wrote:
I&#x
Hi David,
On 06/09/2015 02:45 PM, David Teigland wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:26:25PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 06/09/2015 01:22 PM, David Teigland wrote:
I've just noticed the existence of clustered MD for the first time.
It is a major new user of the dlm, and I have
Hi David,
On 06/09/2015 02:45 PM, David Teigland wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:26:25PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 06/09/2015 01:22 PM, David Teigland wrote:
I've just noticed the existence of clustered MD for the first time.
It is a major new user of the dlm, and I have
On 06/09/2015 01:22 PM, David Teigland wrote:
I've just noticed the existence of clustered MD for the first time.
It is a major new user of the dlm, and I have some doubts about it.
When did this appear on the mailing list for review?
It first appeared in December, 2014 on the RAID mailing l
36 matches
Mail list logo
