Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
> This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
> 1. Introduction
> 1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
> zfs list -d and zfs get -d
> 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
> Author: Chris Gerhard
> 1.3 Date of This Document:
> 12 March, 2009
> 4. Technical Description
>
> This project proposes a -d flag for both the list and get sub-commands to the
> zfs command. The -d option would take a single argument of a Natural number
> that would allow the commands to recurse to a depth equal to that integer
> from the dataset specified.
>
> $ zfs list rpool
> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
> rpool 24.5G 42.5G 29.5K /rpool
> $ zfs list -r rpool
> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
> rpool 24.5G 42.5G 29.5K /rpool
> rpool/ROOT 3.47G 42.5G 18K /rpool/ROOT
> rpool/ROOT/zfs103 3.47G 42.5G 3.47G /
> rpool/dump 1.00G 42.5G 1.00G -
> rpool/swap 20G 62.2G 276M -
> $ zfs list -d 1 rpool
> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
> rpool 24.5G 42.5G 29.5K /rpool
> rpool/ROOT 3.47G 42.5G 18K /rpool/ROOT
> rpool/dump 1.00G 42.5G 1.00G -
> rpool/swap 20G 62.2G 276M -
> $
>
This is a minor quibble, but I was surprised to see that -d is a
replacement for -r instead of an option that modifies its behavior. In
other words, I would have expected the example above to be
$ zfs list -r -d 1 rpool
for consistency with the way the other zfs list modifiers work. On the
other hand, I can't see why you would use -d without -r, and your syntax
will save a few keystrokes.
At the very least, you might want to silently allow the combination of
-r and -d without generating an error. That will help anyone who thinks
of -d as a modifier instead of an action.
Scott
--
Scott Rotondo
Principal Engineer, Solaris Security Technologies
President, Trusted Computing Group
Phone/FAX: +1 408 850 3655 (Internal x68278)
