From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guido Winkelmann Subject: Re: RBD layering design draft Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:41:55 +0200 Message-ID: <13965457.S14qi4B5iq@pc10> References: <4FDB9FBB.9000807@inktank.com> <4FDFB4A4.1080107@inktank.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from unknownsite.de ([62.48.69.106]:53062 "EHLO hartes-hannover.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762247Ab2FVOl4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:41:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alex Elsayed Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Am Freitag, 22. Juni 2012, 02:02:38 schrieb Alex Elsayed: > Dan Mick inktank.com> writes: > > On 06/18/2012 11:01 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Josh Durgin wrote: > > >>>> $ rbd copyup pool2/child1 > > > > "disown" and "adopt"? :) (actually I started as a joke, but really I > > kinda like that; fits with the parent-child name) > > The issue I see with that is that the argument refers to the child rather > than the parent, so it doesn't match. I personally like 'unshare' since > it'll also work in the dedup case, but if we stick with the parent/child > terminology 'emancipate' might work (although it lacks a good reverse). AFAIK the word started in ancient Rome as meaning to release slaves into freedom, so I suppose the opposite would be enslave? Guido