On 10/4/18 5:27 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The dedupe command should only complain about non-matching extents if
> the kernel hasn't managed to dedupe /any/ of the input range.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Should it be "no extents matched" then perhaps?
I mean xfs_io is not exactly-quite a purpose-built dedupe tool, but should
we be a bit more specific if we're issuing a message at all?
if (info->status == XFS_EXTENT_DATA_DIFFERS) {
if (deduped == 0)
fprintf(stderr, "XFS_IOC_FILE_EXTENT_SAME: %s\n",
_("No extents matched."));
else
fprintf(stderr, "XFS_IOC_FILE_EXTENT_SAME: %s\n",
_("Some extents did not match."));
}
And the manpage implies that any difference will make it fail:
> map length bytes at offset dst_offset in the open file to the same physical
> blocks that are mapped at offset src_offset in the file src_file, but only
> if the contents of both ranges are identical.
now you're telling me it'll make a best effort? ;) I think the manpage
needs clarification too ...
> ---
> io/reflink.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/io/reflink.c b/io/reflink.c
> index 26eb2e32..72dfe32d 100644
> --- a/io/reflink.c
> +++ b/io/reflink.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ dedupe_ioctl(
> _(strerror(-info->status)));
> goto done;
> }
> - if (info->status == XFS_EXTENT_DATA_DIFFERS) {
> + if (deduped == 0 &&
> + info->status == XFS_EXTENT_DATA_DIFFERS) {
> fprintf(stderr, "XFS_IOC_FILE_EXTENT_SAME: %s\n",
> _("Extents did not match."));
> goto done;
>
