On 24/04/2015 02:25, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> I think that's a bug / not-fully-implemented-feature. "zfs receive -F" should
> be allowed to destroy whatever it takes to do the receive that you requested.
> (Also the manpage should be updated to reflect this.)
To sum up what we've been discussing: does the following patch look like a
reasonable change:
--- dmu_send.c
+++ dmu_send.c
@@ -982,10 +982,12 @@ recv_begin_check_existing_impl()
dsl_dataset_rele(snap, FTAG);
} else {
- /* if full, most recent snapshot must be $ORIGIN */
- if (ds->ds_phys->ds_prev_snap_txg >= TXG_INITIAL)
- return (SET_ERROR(ENODEV));
- drba->drba_snapobj = ds->ds_phys->ds_prev_snap_obj;
+ /* if full, then must be forced */
+ if (!drba->drba_cookie->drc_force)
+ return (SET_ERROR(EEXIST));
+ /* start from $ORIGIN@$ORIGIN, if supported */
+ drba->drba_snapobj = dp->dp_origin_snap != NULL ?
+ dp->dp_origin_snap->ds_object : 0;
}
return (0);
I do not have a strong opinion about the return code. EEXIST makes sense to me,
but possibly some other code like ENODEV or ETXTBUSY makes even more sense.
--
Andriy Gapon
_______________________________________________
developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
