Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Document the reflink(2) system call.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Chris Mason wrote:
> > > The main difference between reflink and the btrfs ioctl is that in the
> > > btrfs ioctl the destination file must already exist.  The btrfs code can
> > > also do range replacements in the destination file, but I'd agree with
> > > Joel that we don't want to toss the kitchen sink into something nice and
> > > clean like reflink.
> > 
> > Ah, now that I know about the BTRFS data-cloning ioctl... :-)
> > 
> > I'm wondering why reflink() is needed at all.  Can't it be done in
> > userspace, using the BTRFS ioctl?  The hard part in userspace seems to
> > be copying the file attributes, but "cp -a" and other tools manage.
> > 
> 
> reflink is a subset of what the btrfs ioctl does, and that's a good
> thing.  The way they've added support for this to ocfs2 is really cool,
> and the same ideas could be used in other filesystems.
> 
> So, I'd rather see a system call that everyone can implement, and if
> btrfs hangs on to the ioctl for extra features, even better.

Realistically, very few existing filesystems can implement this system call.

I agree that it's much more likely that a filesystem can implement
reflink() than BTRFS' more flexible data cloning though.

-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux