From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:48588 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756501Ab2JCQp7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:45:59 -0400 Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so6260726bkc.19 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <506C6BC8.5050809@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:00 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilya Dryomov CC: Chris Mason , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Goffredo Baroncelli Subject: Re: [PATCH][BTRFS-PROGS][V1] btrfs filesystem df References: <1349264596-9383-1-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> <20121003150117.GA1978@zambezi.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121003150117.GA1978@zambezi.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/03/2012 05:01 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > "Type" for the first column is probably enough. > > Why is the third column called Chunk-size? If my understanding is > correct, it's just a break down of Disk_allocated from the summary > section. If so, why not call it Disk_allocated to avoid confusion? Using everywhere Disk_ was my first attempt. But after some thoughts I decided that these are two different kind of information. It is true that Disk_allocated is the sum of Chunk-Sizes... But my feels is that this is a kind of "implementation details". If some other type of allocation unit will be added to BTRFS, then these will be added to Disk_allocated, but not to Chunk list... I prefer to not change the wording until an enough critical mass of people converge to a unique solution . > > Also, why do you use dashes instead of underbars for table headers? Yes, also Hugo noticed that. > > Thanks,