On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:45:45 -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Yuri Pankov <yuri.pan...@nexenta.com <mailto:yuri.pan...@nexenta.com>> wrote: issue: https://illumos.org/issues/3796 issue: https://illumos.org/issues/6713 webrev: http://www.xvoid.org/illumos/webrev/il-man-zpool-fixes/ 3796 is easy, make zpool(1M) describe listsnapshots instead of listsnaps and mention that listsnaps is shortened name. 6713 is somewhat more involved, I've tried to use the wording from the 4390 fix and describe the current (ie, with the tunable being unset) behavior, but most likely it could be improved. The description of "leaked" looks wrong to me. It only gets incremented for permanent leaks, which only happen if you've set the zfs_free_leak_on_eio tunable. (Which is why this was not documented to begin with.) See references to dp_leak_dir in dsl_scan_sync().
OK, then my reading of the comments and code is completely wrong, sorry. Given that we don't document tunables, is there a way to document the property without mentioning zfs_free_leak_on_eio, or should we really leave it undocumented and close the issue?
The other changes look good.
Thanks. ------------------------------------------- openzfs-developer Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/274414/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/274414/28015062-cce53afa Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=28015062&id_secret=28015062-f966d51c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
