On 2014/04/16 05:22 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:59:09PM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2014/04/16 03:40 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
So in my example with the automated tool, the tool really shouldn't be
deleting a snapshot where send is in progress. The tool should be told
that snapshot is busy and try to delete it again later.
It makes more sense now, 'll queue this up for 3.16 and we can try it out
in -next.
-chris
So ... does this mean the plan is to a) have userland tool give an error; or
b) a deletion would be "scheduled" in the background for as soon as the send
has completed?
b) is current state, a) is the plan
with the patch, 'btrfs subvol delete' would return EPERM/EBUSY
My apologies, I should have followed up on this a while ago already. :-/
Would having something closer to b) be more desirable if the resource
simply disappears but continues in the background? This would be as in a
lazy umount, where presently-open files are left open and writable but
the directory tree has "disappeared".
I submit that, with a), the actual status is more obvious/concrete
whereas with b+lazy), current issues would flow smoothly with no errors
and no foreseeable future issues.
I reserve the right to be wrong, of course. ;)
--
__________
Brendan Hide
http://swiftspirit.co.za/
http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97
--
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
