On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Al <6401e46d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Al posted on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:27:16 +0000 as excerpted: >> > >> > .. unless you're really short of >> > block dev space (!), which is a pretty naff dedup strategy, > >> > I'm looking forward to using it; keep up the very good work. > >> If you really think the design is naff, I'm very glad if you can provide >> a better one. > > Wenruo, I would suggest that you concentrate on your English comprehension > before you reply in such a manner. Going back and rereading the "naff" comment in context, I find it confusing. So I guess my English comprehension requires concentration also. I'd like to think you're saying that being short of block device space while relying on on-disk hash table dedup (rather than in-memory) is not a good idea for the user to do to himself? I can't tell, but if that table is in its own tree, the user isn't likely to run into that problem. Anyway, naff has a negative connotation to it so it sounds like it's a backhanded criticism. Maybe there's something being lost in translation between British and American English. . > > Address your emotional problems in a more appropriate place. You just stepped into the same pile of poo you're accusing Qu of stepping in. -- Chris Murphy -- 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
