From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]:57717 "EHLO mail-ig0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752409AbaEALdm (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2014 07:33:42 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h18so366032igc.8 for ; Thu, 01 May 2014 04:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53623119.8070809@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 07:33:45 -0400 From: Austin S Hemmelgarn MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Felix Homann , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: btrfs on bcache References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2014-04-30 14:16, Felix Homann wrote: > Hi, > a couple of months ago there has been some discussion about issues > when using btrfs on bcache: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31018 > > From looking at the mailing list archives I cannot tell whether or not > this issue has been resolved in current kernels from either bcache's > or btrfs' side. > > Can anyone tell me what's the current state of this issue? Should it > be safe to use btrfs on bcache by now? In all practicality, I don't think anyone who frequents the list knows. I do know that there are a number of people (myself included) who avoid bcache in general because of having issues with seemingly random kernel OOPSes when it is linked in (either as a module or compiled in), even when it isn't being used. My advice would be to just test it with some non-essential data (maybe set up a virtual machine?).