According to the tentative changelog in the wiki, 3.7 will properly support per-file NOCOW. I think this is misleading. In particular, it still does not work correctly in the case when the NOCOW flag of a new flag is being inherited from the directory. I think it would be better to remove that item from the changelog until the the fix [1] is merged. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1438431/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:48:08AM -0500, Marios Titas wrote:> According to the tentative changelog in the wiki, 3.7 will properly > support per-file NOCOW. I think this is misleading. In particular, it > still does not work correctly in the case when the NOCOW flag of a new > flag is being inherited from the directory. I think it would be better > to remove that item from the changelog until the the fix [1] is > merged. > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1438431/You''re right, the patch is not in 3.7-rc nor in btrfs-next, and fixes a real bug. Technically it is a regresssion within the 3.7 cycle (so it could even go to a late -rc), in any case it''s a small change that could also go through the stable tree. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:25:11PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:48:08AM -0500, Marios Titas wrote: > > According to the tentative changelog in the wiki, 3.7 will properly > > support per-file NOCOW. I think this is misleading. In particular, it > > still does not work correctly in the case when the NOCOW flag of a new > > flag is being inherited from the directory. I think it would be better > > to remove that item from the changelog until the the fix [1] is > > merged. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1438431/ > > You''re right, the patch is not in 3.7-rc nor in btrfs-next, and fixes a > real bug. > > Technically it is a regresssion within the 3.7 cycle (so it could even > go to a late -rc), in any case it''s a small change that could also go > through the stable tree. > > davidWell, I''ll resend it for merge with Marios''s reported-by and your Reviewed-by. Don''t worry, it''s a good fix though. thanks, liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > According to the tentative changelog in the wiki, 3.7 will properly > > > support per-file NOCOW. I think this is misleading. In particular, it > > > still does not work correctly in the case when the NOCOW flag of a new > > > flag is being inherited from the directory. I think it would be better > > > to remove that item from the changelog until the the fix [1] is > > > merged. > > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1438431/ > > > > You''re right, the patch is not in 3.7-rc nor in btrfs-next, and fixes a > > real bug. > > > > Technically it is a regresssion within the 3.7 cycle (so it could even > > go to a late -rc), in any case it''s a small change that could also go > > through the stable tree. > > > > david > > Well, I''ll resend it for merge with Marios''s reported-by and your Reviewed-by. > > Don''t worry, it''s a good fix though.I''m using your patch on 2 boxes for 2 months. It is the only way to get decent performance on my workload. Thanks for the patch! Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@gmail.com> -- Sergei