Re: [PATCH v2 10/9] copy_file_range.2: New page documenting copy_file_range()

["Pádraig Brady" <P@draigBrady.com>]

On 22/09/15 21:10, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 02:32 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 09:50:18AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> Hi Anna,

>>> Furthermore, I even wonder if explicitly specifying flags as
>>> COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK should just generate an EINVAL
>>> error. 0 already gives us the behavior described above,
>>> and allowing the combination COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK
>>> perhaps just contributes to misleading the user that these
>>> flags are orthogonal, when in reality they are not. What do
>>> you think?
>>
>> Personally, I think it's a little weird that one turns on reflink with a flag;
>> turns on regular copy with a different flag; and turns on both by not
>> specifying either flag. :)
> 
> Is there a better behavior for flags=0?  I was thinking this would be what people want when they don't care how the copy happens in the kernel.

As a user, I'm fine with this default and the interface in general.

thanks,
Pádraig.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html