From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outrelay06.libero.it ([212.52.84.110]:45630 "EHLO outrelay06.libero.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752532AbaBNR46 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:56:58 -0500 Message-ID: <52FE58EF.1060901@libero.it> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Mamedov , kreijack@inwind.it CC: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] Add command btrfs filesystem disk-usage In-Reply-To: <20140214030045.415e21da@natsu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: References: <52FD1AD6.50500@libero.it> <20140214012810.26297146@natsu> <52FD21B4.4050502@libero.it> <20140214030045.415e21da@natsu> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100 > Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > >> Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are right >> when you don't like "disk-usage". What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ? > > Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic here, i.e. "look this > is not just filesystem usage, this is filesystem CHUNK usage"... Consistency > of having a matching "dev usage" and "fi usage" would have been nicer. What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ? -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5