On 09/24/2017 12:10 PM, Anand Jain wrote: > > >> All my points are clear for this patchset: >> I know I removed one function, and my reason is: >> 1) No or little usage >> And it's anti intuition. >> 2) Dead code (not tested nor well documented) >> 3) Possible workaround >> >> I can add several extra reasons as I stated before, but number of reasons >> won't validate anything anyway. > > End user convenience wins over the developer's technical difficulties.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Qu; there is no a big demand (other than Austin) for this functionality; even you stated that "...at some point it may..."; until now the UI is quite unfriendly (we should use a big enough device, and then cut it by hand on the basis of the output of mkfs.btrfs)... I fear that this is another feature which increase the complexity of btrfs (and tools) with little or none usage.... The work of Qu is a nice cleanup; I hope that this will be the direction which BTRFS will takes: removing of "strange/unused" features improving the reliability of the others. BR G.Baroncelli > > Pls don't remove this feature, it needs fix such as #2 (above) to improve on > #1 (above) as in your list. > > Thanks, Anand > -- > 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 > -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 -- 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
