| From | Subject | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Christian Borntraeger | [PATCH] ext4: allow defrag (EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXT) in 32bit ...
I have an x86_64 kernel with i386 userspace. e4defrag fails on the
EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXT ioctl because it is not wired up for the compat
case. It seems that struct move_extent is compat save, only types
with fixed widths are used:
{
__u32 reserved; /* should be zero */
__u32 donor_fd; /* donor file descriptor */
__u64 orig_start; /* logical start offset in block for orig */
__u64 donor_start; /* logical start offset in block for donor */
...
| Mar 7, 1:32 pm 2010 |
| Jeff Garzik | defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow de ...
I'm curious, what is the overall deployment status of ext4 defragging?
I actually worked on this problem years ago[1], and am hopeful that I
will see defragging in a Linux distribution sometime in my lifetime! ;-)
Looking at Fedora rawhide, I do not see anything resembling e4defrag in
any of the RPM packages like e2fsprogs.
Thanks to everyone working on this,
Jeff
[1] http://linux.yyz.us/misc/ext2meta.c
--
| Mar 7, 4:27 pm 2010 |
| Martin K. Petersen | Re: discard + LVM
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> writes:
Eric> It is expected, as lvm is not yet passing discard requests.
I'm working on this. Missed the 2.6.34 merge window so I'm aiming at
2.6.35.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
| Mar 7, 10:38 am 2010 |
| Eric Sandeen | Re: discard + LVM
It is expected, as lvm is not yet passing discard requests.
I'd ask next on the LVM lists ;)
--
| Mar 6, 10:38 pm 2010 |
| tytso | Re: [incomplete PATCH] ext4: avoid overflow in fiemap
Check and see if it's still a problem with what I ultimately ended up
pushing to Linus. Yes, the way I chose to fix things means that we'll
never do more than 2**32-1 blocks at a time with fiemap, but in
practice there's a limit to the number of extents that can be returned
in a single fiemap call anyway, so in practice this shouldn't be a
problem.
- Ted
--
| Mar 6, 8:38 pm 2010 |
| tytso | Re: [PATCH 27/28] ext4: Convert BUG_ON checks to use ext ...
Or maybe we should rename them be EXT4_ERROR and EXT4_WARNING. What
do other people think?
- Ted
--
| Mar 6, 7:45 pm 2010 |
| Andreas Dilger | Re: [PATCH 27/28] ext4: Convert BUG_ON checks to use ext ...
I think it would make for a lot of code churn without any rel value.
We have lots of lower-case wrappers around functions for things like
this already (e.g. ext4_journal_start(), etc.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
--
| Mar 7, 10:36 am 2010 |
| Eric Sandeen | Re: [PATCH 27/28] ext4: Convert BUG_ON checks to use ext ...
As the originator of the lower-case ext4_error and ext4_warning macros,
I don't much care.
I find the lower case more readable, but if the expectation in fs/extN is
that ALL_MACROS_SHALL_BE_UPPER_CASE, that's fine by me.
-Eric
--
| Mar 6, 10:51 pm 2010 |
| previous day | today | next day |
|---|---|---|
| March 6, 2010 | March 7, 2010 | March 8, 2010 |
