Am 29.04.2012, 01:53 Uhr, schrieb Hubert Kario <hka@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On Sunday 01 of April 2012 11:42:23 Jérôme Poulin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Norbert Scheibner <scno@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some users tested this patch successfully for week,s or months in 2
or 3
> kernel versions since then, true?
If this feature must be implented in VFS in another patch, why not
just activate what works and make the future patch disable it again?
Why would (should) it be impleemented in VFS? reflink copy is completely
different from normal copy and hard link.
I wouldn't make a VFS issue out of that. That should be another discussion.
But:
Subvolumes in btrfs are barriers *only* in btrfs and not visible in VFS.
That is just a bug in my opinion, so it should work anyway, but to look at
it from VFS point of view is strengthening me in wanting the outstanding
patches integrated, as this feature could be supported by VFS in the
future.
IMHO it's strictly btrfs business and not supporting reflink copy between
arbitrary directories is a bug.
I don't know exactly, but I think ZFS is another candidate for "cp
--reflink". For some of the log-structured filesystems this could be
usefull too, but I don't know if some of them already supports this or
plan to support this in the future.
Greetings
Norbert
--
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
