From: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: kreijack@inwind.it
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: Btrfs and data nocow per inode basis
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:32:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120612183209.GC1803@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FD77F45.3060000@libero.it>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:41:25PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>
> After a bit of googling I found a Liu Bo patches which add the ability
> to set the NOCOW flags to a btrfs file.[1]
>
> However it seems that it was not present in the current (v1.42.3)
> e2fsprogs suite.
>
> There is any reason which stopped the adoption of this patch ?
It's a textbook example of how *not* to try to get a patch into
e2fsprogs.
1) It's a huge patch that makes a much larger set of changes than what
is necessary to achieve the desired results (the EXT2_*_FL to
FS_*_FL flags is hugely gratuitous)
2) Because of all of the noise in the patch, something that was
completely missed was that the patch did ***NOT*** allow the setting
of the NOCOW flag.
My apologies for not having the time send a reply back. It fell
between the cracks.
> Does make sense to add the chattr/lsattr capability to the btrfs tool (I
> am thinking about new commands like "btrfs filesystem chattr"/"btrfs
> filesystem lsattr") ?
The lsattr/chattr commands and the flags were always originally been
defined for the ext2/3/4 file systems. It was the reiserfs filesystem
that just glommed onto that interface and hijacked the flags
definition into a file system independent interface. At this point
enough other file systems have used those ioctl's and the flags
interface that I *do* try to coordinate with other file systems.
This means that I coordinate flag assignments and try not to use flag
bits in ext2/3/4 that have been made visible by other file systems
(even though the 32-bit flag space is getting pretty crowded, and
there's not much space left). And I will add support for flags into
lsattr/chattr that are not supported by ext2/3/4.
But a massive change which tries to do a global rename of EXT2_*_FL to
FS_*_FL in e2fsprogs for no good reason? That just adds code churn
and it makes it harder to validate that the patch is correct, for no
good user-visible benefit.
Regards,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-12 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-10 6:47 Btrfs and data nocow for per inode basis Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-12 17:41 ` Btrfs and data nocow " Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-12 18:32 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
2012-06-12 19:15 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-12 20:44 ` Chris Mason
2012-06-12 21:02 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-12 21:10 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-12 22:19 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-13 7:42 ` Liu Bo
2012-06-12 22:08 ` David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120612183209.GC1803@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=kreijack@inwind.it \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).