On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:57:11PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> jim owens wrote:
> > 3) the granularity of the COW (1-byte write may cause
> > 1-block up through whole file copy) is fs-dependent.
>
> And yet ENOSYS if the fs cannot implement any COW, and it isn't
> possible for userspace to duplicate the semantics by explicit copying?
The point-in-time of the snapshot is what's important here.
> Do we say anything about attribute changes triggering COW or not, or
> leave it fs-dependent? Given 3) fs-dependent makes sense, but it's
> nice to know in advance if { reflink -R old_tree saved_tree; chmod -R
> a-w saved_tree } will be as expensive as copying or as cheap as linking.
"Shares the data extents of the source file". I should hope
that chmod doesn't require copying out all the data.
Joel
--
Life's Little Instruction Book #267
"Lie on your back and look at the stars."
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (650) 506-8127
--
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
