On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:26:58PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:08:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> >> What I meant by this was: if you ask for "regular copy", you may end > >> >> up with a reflink anyway. Anyway, how can you reflink a range and > >> >> have the contents *not* be the same? > >> > > >> > reflink forcibly remaps fd_dest's range to fd_src's range. If they didn't > >> > match before, they will afterwards. > >> > > >> > dedupe remaps fd_dest's range to fd_src's range only if they match, of course. > >> > > >> > Perhaps I should have said "...if the contents are the same before the call"? > >> > > >> > >> Oh, I see. > >> > >> Can we have a clean way to figure out whether two file ranges are the > >> same in a way that allows false negatives? I.e. return 1 if the > >> ranges are reflinks of each other and 0 if not? Pretty please? I've > >> implemented that in the past on btrfs by syncing the ranges and then > >> comparing FIEMAP output, but that's hideous. > > > > I'd almost rather have a separate call, maybe unshare_file_range()? > > > > Doesn't it make more sense to put that functionality in fallocate()? That works too, I'm just hoping to keep the copy_file_range stuff simple. -chris -- 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
