similar to: [PATCH v2] E2fsprogs: add missing usage for No_COW

Add the missing usage for No_COW since we''ve supported No_COW flag. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- misc/chattr.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/misc/chattr.c b/misc/chattr.c index 141ea6e..24254cc 100644 --- a/misc/chattr.c +++ b/misc/chattr.c @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static unsigned long sf; static void usage(void) {

I want to eliminate the COW feature on all of my OS files. It is a nice feature for user files, but I don''t see a clear benefit for the actual OS files. And I suspect that COW induced fragmentation is causing or aggravating problems with my system including the boot open_ctree problem. I had planned to recursively chattr these files to "nodatacow" status but then I ran

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:02:59PM +0200, Yonatan Shtarkman wrote: > The attached code snippet?reproduces the issue when running: > python3 libugestfs_segfault_repro.py > > With: > guestfs version: 1.48.6 > guestfs-python version: 1.48.6 Can confirm with {python3-,}libguestfs-1.51.1-1.fc39.x86_64 The stack trace is roughly the same as yours. Rich. > Stacktrace: > #0

(cross-posted on SO: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78022766) Hi all, I'm trying to compile R as a static library with the -fPIC flag so I can use it within java+JNI (is it only possible ?), but I cannot find the right flags in '.configure' to compile R this way. I tested various flags but I cannot find the correct syntax. for now, my latest attempt was ``` rm -rvf?

From: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> Fix return value to get from read_extent_buffer_pages(). Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 6632e5c..35916d5 100644 ---

In clear_extent_bit, it is enough that next node is adjacent in tree level. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index fcf77e1..e941cc4 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -577,8 +577,7 @@ hit_next: if

Our code is not ready to cope with a sectorsize that''s not equal to PAGE_SIZE. It will lead to hanging-on while writing something. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 20196f4..b9866f2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++

Hi there, One of the things that I've been doing for fun is to try to speed up ext4's fsck time. As you can see here: http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2008/08/08/fast-ext4-fsck-times/ Fsck'ing an ext4 filesystem can be between 6-8 times after than the equivalent file hierarchy on ext4. In order to speed it up further, the main place to look is in pass #2, where the directory is

I''ve been working to try to improve the write-ahead log''s performance, and I found that the bottleneck addresses in the checksum items, especially when we want to make a random write on a large file, e.g a 4G file. Then a idea for this suggested by Chris is to use sub transaction ids and just to log the part of inode that had changed since either the last log commit or the last

Since there is a filesystem state, we should deal with it carefully at mount, umount and remount. - At mount, the FS state should be checked if there is error on these FS. If it does have, btrfsck is recommended. - At umount, the FS state should be saved into disk for consistency. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 47

While testing with my buffer read fio jobs[1], I find that btrfs does not perform well enough. Here is a scenario in fio jobs: We have 4 threads, "t1 t2 t3 t4", starting to buffer read a same file, and all of them will race on add_to_page_cache_lru(), and if one thread successfully puts its page into the page cache, it takes the responsibility to read the page''s data. And

Hello there, tl;dr: Is it a known behaviour that using llvm-3.4 and llvm-3.6 at the same time in the same process (while llvm-3.6 is used from a linked shared library and llvm-3.4 is dlopen'ed - with a strange detail: Especially if -rdynamic is used when linking the program). If so, is there a workaround? If not, can it be fixed in llvm-3.6? Long story: I am writing a program that creates

I have a 3 disk raid1 filesystem mounted with nodatacow. I have a folder in said filesystem with the ''C'' NOCOW & ''Z'' Not_Compressed flags set for good measure. I then copy in a large file and proceed to make random modifications. Filefrag shows no additional extents created, good so far. A big thank you to the those devs who got that working. However, after

Setting subvolume/snapshot readonly has been missing for a long time. With this patch, we can set a subvolume/snapshot readonly via: o btrfs subvolume set-ro <path> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- cmds-subvolume.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ioctl.h | 7 +++++++ 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git

I've just made e2fsprogs 1.36-rc1 available on Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2406&package_id=2383&release_id=295092 Fedora Core 3 users will be strongly encouraged to upgrade to e2fsprogs 1.36, since it has numerous bug fixes to some of the Fedora-specific enhancements to e2fsprogs --- in particular, supporting on-line resizing feature using the

When I try to compile e2fsprogs-1.24a I receive the following snippet: tillarium:/home/tilleyrw/downloads/ext3 Files/e2fsprogs-1.24a# mkdir build;cd build tillarium:/home/tilleyrw/downloads/ext3 Files/e2fsprogs-1.24a/build# ../configure <<SNIP>> ./mk_cmds: Files/e2fsprogs-1.24a/lib/ss: No such file or directory mk_cmds: Couldn't find mk_cmds's template files. make[2]: ***

Hey all. I'm not on the list, so can you please cc me? Thanks. Anyhow, I've got two questions. First, the website says that the 'latest' e2fsprogs are needed. Does this mean 1.23-WIP is needed or will 1.22 do? I'm assuming it's just a generally good idea. Second, has anyone tested this on a BE machine? I'd like to use this on my PPC. I don't mind testing

One of my servers appears to have some filesystem corruption. I'm running Red Hat 6.2 with kernel 2.2.19pre6 and ext3 0.5e. That server currently has e2fsprogs-1.20-WIP-0117 installed. Is it OK to upgrade to the latest e2fsprogs (i.e.: 1.22) prior to running the e2fsck on the filesystem? --Shawn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Right now, every release of e2fsprogs, I do the following: ./configure --enable-elf-shlibs && make && make install rm config.cache && rm config.status ./configure && make install-libs Are these two seperate steps necessary? Seems to me that I had a problem installing something or other and it suggested the first line.

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2008:0003 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2008-0003.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ia64: updates/ia64/RPMS/e2fsprogs-1.32-15.4.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/e2fsprogs-devel-1.32-15.4.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi at iki.fi - http://pasi.pirhonen.eu/ Top-postings silently ignored