On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:53PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
Reject copies that don't have the COPY_FR_REFLINK flag set.
I think a reflink actually is a perfectly valid copy, and I don't buy
the duplicate arguments in earlier threads. We really need to think
more in terms of how this impacts a user and now how it's implemented
internally. How does a user notice it's a reflink? They don't as
implemented in btrfs and co. Now on filesystem that don't always do
copy on write but might support reflinks (ocfs2, XFS in the future)
this becomes a bit more interesting - the difference he is that we
get an implicit fallocate when doing a real copy. But if that's
something we have actual requests for that's how we should specify
it rather than in terms of arcane implementation details.