On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:41 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 02:48:09AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > >>> > >>> case OPT_METACOPY_ON: > >>> config->metacopy = true; > >>> + config->strict = true; > >> > >> I think either ->strict should go in a separate patch or we should have > >> a good description in commit message, explaining why ->strict is there > >> and how it will impact behavior going forward. > > > > I'm redoing Amir's patches a bit, and at the moment I'm more inclined > > to leave this after the merge window, since there are so many subtle > > details to deal with. > > > > Back shortly with an updated set. > > ...this is more complicated than I thought. > My reaction as well when I started to dive in... Are you still going to redo the "strict" series? With metacopy out of the picture, I can just reorder the patches and drop the metacopy=on mentions. Let me know if you want me to do that. > Anyway, pushed a metacopy fix to overlayfs-next, that I'm pretty happy with. > Me too. We should do the same for nfs_export=on implies index=on. There are probably more users that just want nfs_export=on than users that know what index=on even means. Let me know if you want me to do that. Thanks, Amir.
