From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:64520 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753894AbbHNIGG (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:06:06 -0400 Received: from thetick ([93.181.44.4]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Mg42v-1ZBfvK2P49-00NRvi for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:06:03 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:05:55 +0200 From: Marc Joliet To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: trim not working and irreparable errors from btrfsck Message-ID: <20150814100555.24c01e93@thetick> In-Reply-To: References: <55816E7B.5040905@gmail.com> <5581ABA2.30906@gmail.com> <21893.29830.540787.159202@localhost.localdomain> <20150813112331.297d15f6@thetick> Reply-To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/rwXaRfa1hhtB0_nB7x5tU1e"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Sig_/rwXaRfa1hhtB0_nB7x5tU1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:14:36 -0600 schrieb Chris Murphy : > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Marc Joliet wrote: >=20 > > Speaking as a user, since "fstrim -av" still always outputs 0 bytes tri= mmed > > on my system: what's the status of this? Did anybody ever file a bug r= eport? >=20 > Since I'm not having this problem with my SSD, I'm not in a position > to provide any meaningful information for such a report. >=20 > The bug should whether this problem is reproducible with ext4 and XFS > on the same device, and the complete details of the stacking (if this > is not the full device or partition of it; e.g. if LVM, md, or > encryption is between fs and physical device). And also the bug should > include full dmesg as attachment, and strace of the fstrim command > that results in 0 bytes trimmed. And probably separate bugs for each > make/model of SSD, with the bug including make/model and firmware > version. >=20 > Right now I think there's no status because a.) no bug report and b.) > not enough information. I was mainly asking because apparently there *is* a patch that helps some people affected by this, but nobody ever commented on it. Perhaps there's a reason for that, but I found it curious. (I see now that it was submitted = in early January, in the thread "[PATCH V2] Btrfs: really fix trim 0 bytes aft= er a device delete".) I can open a bug (I mean, that's part of being a user of btrfs at this stag= e), I'm just surprised that nobody else has. BTW, is there a way to tell if the "discard" mount option does anything? I= 'm curious about whether it could behave differently. --=20 Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup --Sig_/rwXaRfa1hhtB0_nB7x5tU1e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVzaFqAAoJEL/Q5oYsiHj0SfUP/259ENem4tJ0hnYD1VJo1EW9 9GQPO9hdorIX2WbAXQRtJse5A9/02wDUJtGU8In22+fVe0sDAl3UZNgo6CWdSGI8 JFRLqexYgKhtXU9ig3cL4SAZu20uiIoSlanPZ7XpxBdjYe5I4kINCEkkuyYDb25p UtkIEiKaPNV7xiWjpCmBBgb9I+gG3kjdRkCZ0wwGiWN9oupHUbjw27JTn9KXR5Id Qsc0xxFMvI+aM4sYvP+Op7Yl+lvQjf5G1g8QrWFrJOfwMkOBHDzaq+3IPoZZpOwO 0+9BcB9KKfxJWM42CF3qdVcTQVx+SxStrTBp27Ya5HB3RcCvD/os6m0eT2JG1zJf nA1xBxX//gYrsnBof9lo1EokXl3edTmRscb8dea1Z6qPZ8VEYDgTZtej+f1Rl0JD 6LJewn+PnrEYy/m8QdOvjUBeB/tMmUbd4fmIqJ1/pEIXoDw4zjjjoT51F4Tl+RgF VabfuyO1Cp4vDIczioYW1TcS0R14DBGsLtnR9990ji/AzvT81QlKIC9LQ/bOLItN 1YuPf/lozqocBxttr4nB2NW4k+K9mG677B01NRmjm9AT4gVpttTGYq6/D3vdzsvK lbj58p7qPi8ymWBO7UdeegU2RUVZ6wzv7OdBU+Ab5YMuO2NPjwn5lMXVkFhjz1tQ 2pOXeH8AtRGeDMSe7Lsg =laz3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/rwXaRfa1hhtB0_nB7x5tU1e--