Re: [PATCH v2 10/9] copy_file_range.2: New page documenting copy_file_range()
From: Pádraig Brady <hidden>
Date: 2015-09-22 20:30:14
Also in:
linux-btrfs, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs
From: Pádraig Brady <hidden>
Date: 2015-09-22 20:30:14
Also in:
linux-btrfs, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs
On 22/09/15 21:10, Anna Schumaker wrote:
On 09/14/2015 02:32 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:quoted
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 09:50:18AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:quoted
Hi Anna,
quoted
quoted
Furthermore, I even wonder if explicitly specifying flags as COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK should just generate an EINVAL error. 0 already gives us the behavior described above, and allowing the combination COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK perhaps just contributes to misleading the user that these flags are orthogonal, when in reality they are not. What do you think?Personally, I think it's a little weird that one turns on reflink with a flag; turns on regular copy with a different flag; and turns on both by not specifying either flag. :)Is there a better behavior for flags=0? I was thinking this would be what people want when they don't care how the copy happens in the kernel.
As a user, I'm fine with this default and the interface in general. thanks, Pádraig. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html