From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f43.google.com ([209.85.208.43]:44381 "EHLO mail-ed1-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727088AbeHKIvf (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2018 04:51:35 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f43.google.com with SMTP id f23-v6so5771302edr.11 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 23:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Report correct filesystem usage / limits on BTRFS subvolumes with quota To: Tomasz Pala , "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Cc: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <0059606f-88bf-c919-450b-bf08e184b5a2@mailbox.org> <20180809174811.GA27001@polanet.pl> <20180810182115.GA922@polanet.pl> From: Andrei Borzenkov Message-ID: <03266d2e-2812-52bd-43aa-e64f67aaad47@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 09:18:26 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180810182115.GA922@polanet.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 10.08.2018 21:21, Tomasz Pala пишет: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:39:30 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>> I.e.: every shared segment should be accounted within quota (at least once). >> I think what you mean to say here is that every shared extent should be >> accounted to quotas for every location it is reflinked from. IOW, that >> if an extent is shared between two subvolumes each with it's own quota, >> they should both have it accounted against their quota. > > Yes. > This is what "referenced" in quota group report is, is not it? What is missing here?