On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:20 PM John Wren Kennedy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pool creation could definitely be made more efficient. Things to watch out > for would be that different tests with different numbers of threads would > want more or fewer files, which would mean they'd want to be different > sizes. Also, tests should be able to run in any order, so we can't make > assumptions about what has run, and what will run. There are definitely > improvements in this area, but I'd rather not lump them in with this fix. > Yes, I think a separate case makes sense. > destroy_dataset() already has a ton of consumers in ZoL, so I'd rather > keep the behavior as it is. > Oh, right. I missed that. > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634#issuecomment-394503446>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFa_GfxOepbTX3j7XIoBvPDId4gOKcUks5t5aSZgaJpZM4TukvL> > . > -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/634#issuecomment-394517806 ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T0307887c7165c81e-Md69241552ac4ce11c6433bdb Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
