On 10/03/2012 07:46 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:46:00PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 10/03/2012 05:01 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
"Type" for the first column is probably enough.
Why is the third column called Chunk-size? If my understanding is
correct, it's just a break down of Disk_allocated from the summary
section. If so, why not call it Disk_allocated to avoid confusion?
Using everywhere Disk_<something> was my first attempt. But after
some thoughts I decided that these are two different kind of
information. It is true that Disk_allocated is the sum of
Chunk-Sizes... But my feels is that this is a kind of
"implementation details". If some other type of allocation unit will
be added to BTRFS, then these will be added to Disk_allocated, but
not to Chunk list...
I prefer to not change the wording until an enough critical mass of
people converge to a unique solution .
It is the chunks that is the implementation detail that we want to hide.
Average Btrfs user wouldn't want to know anything about chunks, the only
thing he'd be interested in is Disk_allocated and similar fields.
The "df" standard tool id sufficient for the "average user".
We need only to export these information via the standard syscall
stat[v]fs. Basically we should try to implement the algorithm of the
Free_(Estimated) space for the statfs(2) syscall.
Who uses btrfs tools, is an user with knowledge of btrfs higher than the
average.
Moreover, I am pretty sure "Chunk-Size" would actually confuse people.
I stared at your example output for a few seconds trying to comprehend a
21GB Chunk-Size on a 72GB partition. What you call "Chunk-Size" is
actually a sum of sizes of chunks of that particular type, and a few
lines above you call the same exact sum (only this time over all types
of chunks) "Disk_allocated". So I think it's only logical to rename the
column in question to "Disk_allocated" to match the summary section.
What about
[...]
Details:
Chunk_type Mode Size_(disk) Size_(logical) Used
Data Single 21.01GB 21.01GB 10.53GB
System DUP 80.00MB 40.00MB 4.00KB
[...]
?
Still I am still not entirely satisfied; I am open to other suggestions,
but until now every people has a different opinion. If we reach an
agreement between two/three persons (even different from my opinion) I
will update the patches. Otherwise I suggest to accept these patches "as
is" because there no is a "general" consensus to a wording...
Thanks,
Ilya
Ciao
Goffredo
--
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
