similar to: LLD: Can we make --warn-backrefs the default?

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean towards having them here, but don't mind if folks feel like it keeps the noise down & want to more post a notice saying "hey, here's this thing, if you're interested, go discuss it over there" -

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:29 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:24 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean

On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter Smith >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be argued >that there are certain cases where it can help detect layering >violations as you mentioned in your change, I'm not sure how valuable that >is in practice. Every case I've encountered so

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter >> Smith >> >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be >> argued

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:00 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >> >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >> >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >> >I

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:15 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > I wanted to chime in and say that I think we should keep the current > default too, for three reasons: > > 1. The current default is more user friendly. Users shouldn't have to > worry about if they pass -lpthread before or after their .o files (...or > other libraries. I know I know for

It looks like the conversation has died, but I just wanted to post my own investigation based on our internal code base. The code base itself is quite a sprawling mass, involving multiple different build systems, some bits CMake based, some hand-curated and so on, and I don't fully comprehend it all. I do know that trying to change it is hard at best, and more likely impossible to do so

Hello, FileCheck allows us to define match variables and use them on subsequent lines. This is quite useful, but could be even more useful if it was possible to use the variable later on the same line it matched. For example, I would want to write this: ; CHECK: bic [[REG:r[0-9]+]], [[REG]], #3 But I currently can't because [[REG]] will only match a REG variable defined on a _previous_

Parents must be same after going through ref_for_same_block. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/backref.c | 6 ------ 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c index f318793..9aaa38e6 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c @@ -469,11 +469,6 @@ static int __merge_refs(struct list_head

We''re going to use this flag EXTENT_DEFRAG to indicate which range belongs to defragment so that we can implement snapshow-aware defrag: We set the EXTENT_DEFRAG flag when dirtying the extents that need defragmented, so later on writeback thread can differentiate between normal writeback and writeback started by defragmentation. This patch is used for the latter one. Originally patch

If I understand correctly, the desire is to change the current behavior in a kind of subtle way. Is there some way you could instrument trunk's FileCheck to die if the old behavior is encountered, and use that to definitively find all tests which rely on the current behavior and migrate them (possibly to an interim solution) in preparation for the change in semantics? How much is the old

I''ve upgraded to linux 3.10 and enabled extended inode refs and skinny metadata extent refs with these commands: btrfstune -r /dev/sdc1 btrfstune -x /dev/sdc1 Since then, I have "WARNING: at fs/btrfs/backref.c:903 find_parent_nodes+0x616/0x815 [btrfs]()" showing up like crazy: # grep -c "WARNING: at fs/btrfs/backref.c:903" syslog 181819 That''s after just

A user reported that fsck was complaining about unresolved refs for some snapshots. You can reproduce this by doing mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb mount /dev/sdb /mnt btrfs subvol snap /mnt/ /mnt/a btrfs subvol snap /mnt/ /mnt/b btrfs subvol del /mnt/a umount /mnt btrfsck /dev/sdb and you''d get this unresolved ref root 258 dir 256 index 2 namelen 1 name a error 600 because snapshot b has a dir

This patch contains two changes to avoid unnecessary tree block reads during snapshot dropping. First, check tree block''s reference count and flags before reading the tree block. if reference count > 1 and there is no need to update backrefs, we can avoid reading the tree block. Second, save when snapshot was created in root_key.offset. we can compare block pointer''s

Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from: http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ Btrfs is still in an early alpha state, and the disk format is not finalized. v0.10 introduces a new disk format, and is not compatible with v0.9. The core of this release is explicit back references for all metadata blocks, data extents, and directory items. These are a crucial building

Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from: http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ Btrfs is still in an early alpha state, and the disk format is not finalized. v0.10 introduces a new disk format, and is not compatible with v0.9. The core of this release is explicit back references for all metadata blocks, data extents, and directory items. These are a crucial building

Hi all, I''m running btrfs in a 3-disk RAID1 configuration. After a hard power-off, I''m seeing a lot of hung I/O tasks on this volume, apparently due to a corrupt leaf. I first noticed the problem on kernel 3.4.7, and it''s persisted with 3.4.8. Relevant parts of the kernel log follow. [ 85.179621] block group 38684065792 has an wrong amount of free space [

While testing raid-auto-repair patches I''m going to send out later, I just found the very last bug in my current scrub patch series: Changelog v4->v5: - fixed a deadlock when fixup is taking longer while scrub is about to end Original message follows: ------------------------ This patch set introduces two new features for scrub. They share the backref iteration code which is the

Now we set @refs to 2 on creating a new extent buffer, meanwhile we allocate the needed free space, but we don''t give enough free_extent_buffer() to reduce the eb''s references to zero so that the eb can finally be freed, so the problem is we has decrease the referene count of backrefs to zero, which ends up releasing the space occupied by the eb, and this space can be allocated

Hello everyone, I wasn't planning on releasing v0.12 yet, and it was supposed to have some initial support for multiple devices. But, I have made a number of performance fixes and small bug fixes, and I wanted to get them out there before the (destabilizing) work on multiple-devices took over. So, here's v0.12. It comes with a shiny new disk format (sorry), but the gain is