similar to: [ANNOUNCE] Btrfs v0.12 released

Hi, I've recently benchmarked btrfs v0.11 & v0.12 against ext2, ext3, ext4, jfs, reiserfs and xfs. OS: Ubuntu Hardy Kernel: 2.6.24(-5-server) Hardware: --------- Fu-Si Primergy RX330 S1 * AMD Opteron 2210 1.8 GHz * 1 GB RAM * 3 x 73 GB, 3Gb/s, hot plug, 10k rpm, 3.5" SAS HDD * LSI RAID 128 MB Fu-Si Econel 200 * Intel Xeon 5110 * 512 MB RAM

Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.13 is now available for download from: http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ We took another short break from the multi-device code to make the minor mods required to compile on 2.6.25, fix some problematic bugs and do more tuning. v0.13 has no disk format changes since v0.12. The most important fix is for file data checksumming errors. These might show up on .o

Hello everyone, Unfortunately, this does include a disk format change, but this set of fixes brings benchmarks back up to where they were before the back pointers. There are some tweaks for the block allocator that give small benefits, but most of the speedup comes from these two changes: * When allocating extents, insert the extent record and the first backref in a single tree insert.

Hello everyone, I've just tagged and released Btrfs v0.9. Special thanks to Yan Zheng and Josef Bacik for their work. This release includes a number of disk format changes from v0.8 and also a small change from recent btrfs-unstable HG trees. So, if you have existing Btrfs filesystems, you will need to backup, reformat and restore to try out v0.9. You can find download links and other

Hello everyone, I've just tagged and released Btrfs v0.9. Special thanks to Yan Zheng and Josef Bacik for their work. This release includes a number of disk format changes from v0.8 and also a small change from recent btrfs-unstable HG trees. So, if you have existing Btrfs filesystems, you will need to backup, reformat and restore to try out v0.9. You can find download links and other

V1->V2: -Changed dio_end_io to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL -Removed the own_submit blockdev dio helper -Removed the boundary change V2->V3 -Made it so we keep track of what the current logical offset in the file we have a BIO setup for so we can pass it into the submit_io hook. Because BTRFS can do RAID and such, we need our own submit hook so we can setup the bio''s in the correct fashion,

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" -

fs_info->last_trans_log_full_commit is a 64bits variant, we might get a wrong value on the 32bit machines if we access it directly. Fix it by atomic operation. Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 ++- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 ++- fs/btrfs/tree-log.c |

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

Hi all, LLD's --warn-backrefs is a tool to identify potential incompatible archive selection semantics with traditional Unix linkers. I have improved it (via D77522,D77630 and D77512) to a state where a --warn-backrefs diagnostic almost assuredly means that the link will fail with GNU ld, or the symbol will get different resolution in GNU ld and LLD. My conclusion is that --warn-backrefs is a

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

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

This depends on the change to ordered data search. Signed-off-by: jim owens <owens6336@gmail.com> --- fs/btrfs/dio.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dio.c b/fs/btrfs/dio.c index b6934be..c930ff5 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/dio.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/dio.c @@ -435,14 +435,81 @@ static void

As far as I know, btrfs comes from "btree file system", but why does btrfs pronounce "butter-eff-ess"? -- Wang Shaoyan -- 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 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 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 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

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

This fixes up the progs to properly deal with skinny metadata. This adds the -x option to mkfs and btrfstune for enabling the skinny metadata option. This also makes changes to fsck so it can properly deal with the skinny metadata entries. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- V2->V3: update the mkfs.btrfs man page with the new option This is based on