From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:58132 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753496Ab2ISIcp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:32:45 -0400 Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FE23EE0AE for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B57B45DE59 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237F045DE56 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D191DB804F for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com (m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.136]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D551DB8046 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from m1000.css.fujitsu.com (m1000 [127.0.0.1]) by m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD8B61069 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.124.101.112]) by m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8F760FB7 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:43 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <50598320.4060501@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:32 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Seto MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs-progs: add mount-option command References: <5057CDA7.3090201@jp.fujitsu.com> <5057CEA9.3070707@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120918123018.GA17430@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120918123018.GA17430@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (2012/09/18 21:30), David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:30:17AM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: ... > > So, you're basically implementing subset of the whole-filesystem > options. As has been mentioned, alternate way is to use the 'properties' > interface as a global entry point from the management tool. It would be > great if you base your patches on top of it. > > (The props haven't been acked, but we've reached a wider consensus on > irc, patches are in the mailinglist, so we can bring it up again and > discuss outstanding issues or objections. I'm mainly concerned about > priority of setting the defaults and not-bloating the 'btrfs' interface > too much.) Thank you very much for your review! I'll rework my patch to reflect all comments. Please let me know if there are still outstanding issues or objections about/against this feature. Thanks, H.Seto