On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 05:02:49PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote: > >So an enahced interface could look like this: > > > >subvol delete: > >--commit-each - run the ioc sync/wait ioctl after each delete ioctl > >--commit-after - dtto but sync/wait after all are deleted > >--wait-for-cleanup - wait until all given subvols are cleaned > > > >'filesystem sync' exteded to wait for subvol cleanup has following > >cases: > >- wait for a specific subvolume to be cleaned > >- wait for all currently deleted, do not care if more subvols are > > deleted in the meantime > >- wait until there are no subvolumes left to clean > I think it is unnecessary to add such options for 'filesystem sync'. > we may wait a long time until all subvolume deletion are finished as > async subvolume deletion is implemented in cleaner thread.:-) I mean that 'filesystem sync' will stay as it is now, but will be enhanced with a few options to further specify what else should be synced. The difference is that the wait/sync is not tied to the 'subvol delete' operation. I start to think that a new 'filesystem' subcommand would be suitable for that, instead of 'fi sync'. > Miao also pointed out that only if we are running out of space, waiting > subvolume deletion finished will make sense, our opinion is not to disturb > 'filesystem sync' . > > What do you think ? :-) I agree with that. -- 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
