From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:30983 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752024AbaGGAny convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2014 20:43:54 -0400 Message-ID: <53B9ED88.8020201@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 08:44:56 +0800 From: Qu Wenruo MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: Add mount point check for 'btrfs fi df' command References: <1404463129-28350-1-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> <1404463129-28350-2-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> <20140704135226.GO1553@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20140704135226.GO1553@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: Add mount point check for 'btrfs fi df' command From: David Sterba To: Qu Wenruo Date: 2014年07月04日 21:52 > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> 'btrfs fi df' command is currently able to be executed on any file/dir >> inside btrfs since it uses btrfs ioctl to get disk usage info. >> >> However it is somewhat confusing for some end users since normally such >> command should only be executed on a mount point. > I disagree here, it's much more convenient to run 'fi df' anywhere and > get the output. The system 'df' command works the same way. > > The 'fi df' command itself is not that user friendly and the numbers > need further interpretation. I'm using it heavily during debugging and > restricting it to the mountpoint seems too artifical, the tool can cope > with that. Oh, if 'fi df' is mainly for debug, then I am OK for not merging this patchset. > > The 'fi usage' is supposed to give the user-friendly overview, but the > patchset is stuck because I found the numbers wrong or misleading under > some circumstances. Although these patchset may not be merged, I'm curious about the wrong numbers. Would you please provide some leads or hints? BTW, the indent in cmd_filesystem_df is 7 space, which is not normal 1 tab(8 space). Thanks, Qu > > I'll reread the thread that motivated this patch to see if there's > something to address.