On 09/25/2013 12:27 AM, M. Mohan Kumar wrote: > Here is the right link: http://review.gluster.org/#/c/5626/ > Thanks guys. I haven't taken a deep look at the code, but some initial high-level comments... The first thing I notice is that we take the opposite approach in the associated qemu-block command. The target of the clone command is the new file (referencing the source) rather than the original file passing in a name of the target. Personally, I find the former more natural as a core interface. The error handling is more straightforward (i.e., ENOENT) and it matches more closely with native primitives that provide this kind of functionality (i.e., correct me if wrong, but I think we observed that btrfs clone works via ioctl on the target fd, providing the source fd as a parameter). That said, I'm not sure if that is considered more user-friendly or not. If that's a concern, could we change the low level interface to work as described (i.e., user issues command on source file, high level code converts into command on target file)? IOW, I think a nice goal going forward would be to have the low level mechanisms standardize on some kind of ioctl, and the higher level code become convenience commands that simply exercise the ioctl (and what actually happens after that depends on the type of file, what translators are loaded, etc.). I guess that's hand wavy at the moment, but the idea is that all of this path resolving and whatnot becomes generic and independent rather than specific to and duplicated across each snapshot/clone mechanism we provide. Secondarily, but somewhat related... does the path resolving code that is there now have to be buried in fuse-bridge? Avati and I have briefly discussed this idea of separating the management here into an independent translator, and I think this falls in as a perfect candidate for something like that. The resolving code is non-trivial, however, so I'm not sure if there are serious technical hurdles for that kind of approach. For example, is it possible/reasonable to push this into a new translator beneath fuse (or perhaps library code?) and just skip linking the inode into the parent table until/unless that happens naturally? Thoughts? Brian > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:53 AM, M. Mohan Kumar <mohankumar.m@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > >> >> >> http://review.gluster.org/#/q/owner:%22M.+Mohan+Kumar+%253Cmohan%2540in.ibm.com%253E%22,n,z >> >> I also replied to your other comments. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Anand Avati <avati@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Adding Brian Foster (and gluster-devel) for the discussion of unified UI >> for snapshotting. >>> Mohan, I must have missed your comment. Can you please point to the >> specific patch where you posted your comment? >>> Avati >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:29 AM, M. Mohan Kumar <mohankumar.m@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Avati, >>>> I am ready with V5 of BD xlator patches (I consolidated the patches to >> 5). Before posting them I wanted your opinion about the interfaces I use >> for creating clone and snapshot. I posted them on Gerrit few days back. >> Could you please respond to that? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Mohan. >>> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Mohan. >> > > >
