Re: About stale qgroup auto removal behavior change

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1190 bytes --]



On 2020/2/5 上午2:20, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 2/3/20 7:37 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> This is the reminder of how we could handle the behavior change of
>> staled qgroup auto removal.
>>
>> [PROBLEM]
>> If btrfs has dropped one subvolume, it will not delete the level 0
>> qgroup automatically, leaving the qgroup still hanging there, with all
>> numbers set to 0.
>> This needs manual user interaction to delete all those staled qgroups.
>>
>> [SOLUTIONS]
>> There are several way to solve it, all with its advantage and
>> disadvantage.
>>
>> - Auto remove them by default, and no way to keep the the staled qgroups
>>    Pro: Easy to implement (already submitted)
>>    Con: User has no choice to keep staled qgroups. But I could argue that
>>         no one sane would want to keep them anyway.
> 
> This should have been what was done in the first place.  Nobody is using
> qgroups right now anyway as they do not work, might as well do it the
> correct way now so when they are in use we don't have to worry about
> it.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef
David, what's your idea?
Still want to push the enable ioctl way?

Thanks,
Qu


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]