> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Blake [mailto:eblake@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:25 AM > To: Martin Kletzander; Chen, Hanxiao/陈 晗霄 > Cc: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] storage: perform btrfs clone if possible > > On 11/24/2014 12:09 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:11:47PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote: > >> We already had nocow flags in virStorageSource. > >> But when creating RAW file, we don't take advantage > >> of clone of btrfs. > >> This file introduce btrfs_clone_file function, > >> and try to use it when !nocow. > >> > > > > I'm not sure we want to do this, but I have nothing against that > > either. So I'll just review the code without any other comments. > > > > > > > As I said, I'm not commenting on whether we want this in or not, so > > for that you should wait for someone's response. I bet there's a > > (good) reason behind libvirt not using some lvm/zfs/btrfs features, > > but I am too lazy to search for it since it'd be inaccurate anyway. > > I think it makes sense to expose this functionality; although I suspect > it is better if we do so by having the user pass an explicit new flag > value to existing API instead of doing it automatically. > Thanks for your clarification. But we've already had nocow in virStorageSource and <nocow> tags. So I think if we do not specify <nocow> tags in XML, we should try it according to 'nocow' in codes. Or do we need a new flags such as --reflink for tools like virt-clone? Thanks, - Chen -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list