On 10.12.24 08:13, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 03:37:25PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >> The problem with option 2 is that when you're doing copy between two >> different LUNs, then you suddenly have to maintain state in one kernel >> object about stuff relating to another kernel object. I think that is >> messy. Seems unnecessarily complex. > > Generally agreeing with all you said, but do we actually have any > serious use case for cross-LU copies? They just seem incredibly > complex any not all that useful. One use case I can think of is (again) btrfs balance (GC, convert, etc) on a multi drive filesystem. BUT this use case is something that can just use the fallback read-write path as it is doing now.
