Quoting David Sterba (2013-12-09 18:32:45) > 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 It may be hard to wait for a specific subvolume from btrfs fi sync. You'd have to know the id, or have an interface that shows a list of ids currently under deletion (not a bad idea ;) > > >- 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. It's more natural to have the waiting in the subvol delete command, but I'm not against adding a few ways to wait in btrfs fi sync too, as long as they share the same core implementation. -chris -- 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
