Hi. I wish mean: I can't. I now for the btrfs maturity. But it's my unique alternative. I understand. For me this bug should be important because it block all the system, since Linux 4.1+ It's exactly what I wish, pay to have a quick fix. I don't think I wish too much, just fix this bug and put to upstream. Thanks for your time to read me, and thanks for confirm this bug is not forget. A least somebody have take time to read me, great thanks for this. Cheers, On 05/12/17 04:01, Duncan wrote: > alpha_one_x86 posted on Thu, 11 May 2017 17:25:32 +0200 as excerpted: > >> Up plz, I can work with this bug. >> >> >> On 05/11/17 01:39, alpha_one_x86 wrote: >>> Hi, this bug is very blocking for me: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195257 >>> >>> The server is backup server, I btrfs receive (with and without -p), and >>> of course btrfs subvolume delete The volume is 70TB, then I use >>> space_cache=v2 > Since you can work with it, do so. We're not stopping you. =:^) > > Or did you mean /can't/? > > Keep in mind that while btrfs is considered stabilizing, on this list at > least it's not considered fully stable and mature. If you want/need a > filesystem that's stable and mature, there's others out there that fill > that requirement. We don't claim btrfs does. Your system, your choice > of filesystem and with it, filesystem maturity. > > Meanwhile, btrfs devs have a lot of stuff on their plate, including bugs > they're already working on and further development, and (as with most > devs) aren't going to take kindly to demands that they work on *YOUR* bug > *RIGHT* *NOW*. That, if anything, is about the fastest way I know of to > ensure that working on it is /deprioritized/, with stuff that would have > been put off to work on it, done first, instead. > > Unless of course you're paying the salary of that dev. If you are, then > you get to call the shots, to some degree at least. Good devs tend to > find other employment if you're too controlling, tho, and they can > because good devs are in enough demand they often pick their jobs from a > list of offers, and they tend to be motivated by more than money so if > you're too demanding you can't expect to simply outbid everyone else on > the list, either, no matter how much money you have. And any dev skilled > enough to regularly get their work into the mainline kernel can be > considered a good dev, so... > > So I'd suggest that if it's high enough priority to you, you'll find a > kernel dev and sponsor them to work on it for you. But be warned, if > they're not already a btrfs dev, it'll take them some time to come upto > speed. Otherwise, you'll wait in line with everyone else... unless you > push too much, in which case your reports will as I said get > deprioritized, and if noone else reports them, your bugs may not get > handled until there's nothing else waiting... which could easily push > resolution past 2027... yes, a decade or more out. > -- alpha_one_x86/BRULE Herman <alpha_one_x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Main developer of Supercopier/Ultracopier/CatchChallenger, Esourcing and server management IT, OS, technologies, research & development, security and business department -- 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
