On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:37:00 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: >> There seems to be an issue if we try to build a btrfs based FS that >> is less than 70M, we get the following assertion failure: >> >> mkfs.btrfs: extent-tree.c:2682: btrfs_reserve_extent: Assertion >> `!(ret)' failed. >> mkfs.btrfs -b 104857600 -r rootfs rootfs.btrfs > Honestly, the path of least resistance is probably to avoid the -r > option all together. As you've found, it's not reliable. > > I'd take the time to roll the infrastrcture to populate the image by > writing to a mounted image with the kernel code. > > - z > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > I although agree with the mount + cp(kernel) way to populate the filesystem. Also I think the implement of "-r" should be somewhat like mount+cp other than the current way, since the userland implement is noticeably slow than kernel way. Cc:Donggeun Kim I also wonder why "-r" option is needed, since IMO the "-r" options is only needed if the filesystem is full readonly and must be populated on initialization like squashfs. And since btrfs is a filesystem that can be read and write, the "-r" option is not somewhat needed. So I prefer to remove the "-r" option. Thanks Qu��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
