Hi Chen, thanks for reviewing. I partially disagree with you. The new command(s) is required when the code detects a change and wants to communicate this change to the receive side. My patch addresses the cases when - no new command is required to communicate the change (patch1) - there is no change that is needed to be communicated (patch 2)
So even if/when new command is added, my patch still holds, I believe. However, let's see what others will comment. Thanks, Alex. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Chen Yang <chenyang.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > Hi, Alex > The patches can only solve part of questions, but some like "punch holes" > problems > as Alexander wrote are still unsolved. So I think these patches are > unnecessary > if adding new command would help to solve all the questions. > > Chen. > > On 2013-1-9 4:11, Alex Lyakas wrote: >> These two patches address the issue of sending unneeded zero data for >> disknr==0 and PREALLOC extents. >> There is room for additional improvement for PREALLOC extents, but it >> requires adding a new command, so for >> now this is not addressed. >> >> Please review and comment. >> >> Thanks, >> Alex. >> >> Alex Lyakas (2): >> Avoid sending disknr==0 extents in the following cases: 1) full >> send 2) new inode in a diff-send 3) when disknr==0 extents are >> added to the end of an inode >> On a diff-send, avoid sending PREALLOC extents, if the parent root >> has only PREALLOC extents on an appropriate file range. >> >> fs/btrfs/send.c | 178 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 172 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> > -- 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
