Re: [RFC][V2] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 29 Oct 2012 23:21 +0100, from kreijack@xxxxxxxxx (Goffredo Baroncelli):
> Hi all,
> 
> this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command "btrfs fi df".
> 
> The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a
> general consensus about the wording.

In general, I like it. And I think that especially with today's large
terminals (with frame buffers and X11), one doesn't need to be too
fixated at an 80 column terminal width.

One thing, though; what is the difference between "unused" and
"unallocated"? If there is no difference, I feel the same word should
be used throughout.

-- 
Michael Kjörling • http://michael.kjorling.se • michael@xxxxxxxxxxx
                “People who think they know everything really annoy
                those of us who know we don’t.” (Bjarne Stroustrup)
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux