From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for
 pagecache copies
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:38:08 -0700
Message-ID: <20151016053808.GA29510@infradead.org>
References: <1443634014-3026-1-git-send-email-Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
 <1443634014-3026-9-git-send-email-Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
 <20151011142203.GA31867@infradead.org>
 <20151012231749.GC11398@birch.djwong.org>
 <561E980C.9010509@Netapp.com>
 <CALCETrU0-Q-q0u0BAPwu+mbyS+LVp6M1Hqro3xwzSm7eNCbEmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151014182701.GC31225@infradead.org>
 <561EA83E.8080000@gmail.com>
 <20151015063621.GA3025@infradead.org>
 <561F9B13.7020804@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker-HgOvQuBEEgTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Zach Brown <zab-ugsP4Wv/S6ZeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>, Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	andros-HgOvQuBEEgTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <561F9B13.7020804-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:24:51AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> My only point with saying we shouldn't reflink by default is that there are
> many (unintelligent) people who will assume that since the syscall has copy
> in it's name, that's what it will do; and, while I don't think we should
> cater to such individuals, it does make sense to have a syscall that says in
> it's name that it copies data actually do so by default.

As far as the user is concerned a reflink is a copy.  A very efficient
copy.