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. -- 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
