From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:35288 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751238AbaJPBh4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:37:56 -0400 Received: from kw-mxoi2.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.0.237.143]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33453EE1C1 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:37:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by kw-mxoi2.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C38AC06E4 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:37:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from g01jpfmpwyt01.exch.g01.fujitsu.local (g01jpfmpwyt01.exch.g01.fujitsu.local [10.128.193.38]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527011DB803F for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:37:53 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <543F213F.5090308@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:37:03 +0200 From: Satoru Takeuchi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Mason , Filipe Manana CC: naota Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: correct empty compression property behavior References: <541BED3D.5020803@jp.fujitsu.com> <20140929163646.GF11436@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20140929163646.GF11436@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi David and Chris, (2014/09/29 18:36), David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:45:49PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: >> In the current implementation, compression property == "" has >> the two different meanings: one is with BTRFS_INODE_NOCOMPRESS, >> and the other is without this flag. >> >> So, even if the two files a and b have the same compression >> property, "", and the same contents, one file seems to be >> compressed and the other is not. It's difficult to understand >> for users and also confuses them. > > Fixing this inconsistency is good, let me think more about the > interface. How about these patches? These patches seems not to be merged yet. Especially patch 4/4 resolve the bug that atomic two operations are separated to the different two transactions. I consider this patch should be applied as soon as possible. Thanks, Satoru > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >