On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 02:35:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Welll... you could argue that if the underlying "thin provisioning" is > actually just an xfs file, that punching tons of tiny holes in that file > could increase the height of the bmbt. In that case, you'd want to > reduce the chances of the punch failing with ENOSPC by punching out > larger ranges to free up more blocks. That is a somewhat reaonable line of thougt. But is an underprovisioned device near ENOSPC really the target here vs an SSD? Either way, if we have good reasons for by-cnt except for it being a little simpler I can live with keeping it. In doubt I just prefer to have simple code and one implementation instead of two.
