On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:36:22PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: > So the main change is .copy_file_range syscall. Was it rejected before > or can we just push it forward as it is? It wasn't rejected, but we kept bikeshedding over the semantics insted of moving it forward. > If there are objections against a new syscall, we can drop it and move > on with vfs helper and the new copy_file_range file operation, in > order to just make nfsd clone work. I think everyone wants the syscall, but people don't agree on the semantics. For now maybe we should just add the method and move the btrfs/xfs ioctl to common code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
