On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 08:11:17AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 01:56:47PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 09:04:42PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > > > Before we forced to change a file's NOCOW and COMPRESS flag due to > > > the parent directory's, but this ends up a bad idea, because it > > > confuses end users a lot about file's NOCOW status, eg. if someone > > > change a file to NOCOW via 'chattr' and then rename it in the current > > > directory which is without NOCOW attribute, the file will lose the > > > NOCOW flag silently. > > > > > > This diables 'change flags in rename', so from now on we'll only > > > inherit flags from the parent directory on creation stage while in > > > other places we can use 'chattr' to set NOCOW or COMPRESS flags. > > > > > > > I'm of the mind we definitely shouldn't drop flags we've set previously, > > but I > > think we should also inherit any flags we have set on the directory, so if > > we > > move a file into a NOCOW directory we should inherit the flag. I'm not > > married > > to the idea, but it seems to make the most sense to me. Thanks, > > > (Said in another thread) > I'm ok with either one, but... > from some reports on the list, end users are more likely to control, use > chattr > files by themselves, inheriting flags via moving a file to a new directory is > indeed not very welcomed. > > So for practical use, I assume that it's fairly enough to inherit flags only > on > creation?
I still haven't figured out in what cases the silent flag inheritance (for a non-empty) file would help and the user would be happy that it works like this. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
