On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'll post what I have next week (done for this week). > >> 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. Yeah, probably makes sense. And there's the annoying fact that nfs_export can't be enabled if metacopy is on by default... Not sure how much backward compat headache would involve changing these. Thanks, Miklos
