From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] fs: Document the reflink(2) system call. Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 03:15:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20090506071531.GB6976@mit.edu> References: <1241331303-23753-1-git-send-email-joel.becker@oracle.com> <1241331303-23753-2-git-send-email-joel.becker@oracle.com> <20090505010703.GA12731@shareable.org> <20090505071608.GB10258@mail.oracle.com> <20090505080936.GG3209@webber.adilger.int> <20090505165628.GC7835@mail.oracle.com> <20090505212417.GO3209@webber.adilger.int> <20090505213206.GM7835@mail.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Andreas Dilger , Jamie Lokier , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Return-path: Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:53409 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020AbZEFHPs (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2009 03:15:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090505213206.GM7835@mail.oracle.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:32:06PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > The same as what? If you reflink your own file, it preserves > the security context of the original or it appears with the default > security context of yourself? They are not the same. "Treat it like > link(2)" argues for the former - which precludes changing ownership. > That's what reflink is designed to do. "Treat it like cp" is a > different behavior. The reason why I don't like the default to be "preserve the inode ownership" is because it's *not* just like link(2). If it were just like link(2), the inode number would also be preserved. If the inode number is changing, then it arguably is ***much*** more like a copy. And a copy operation also has many useful properties. - Ted