On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote: > Thanks, I missed to find that before. > The implementation is very different from the one I proposed.
That's one of the fundaental questions how to store the information: inside existing structures, via xattrs, under new tree items. Each one has pros and cons. > > Designing and merging the properties feature takes time, but we want to tune > > simple things now. The wiki project mentions ‘tune2fs’ as an example, but > > the > > project details are not always accurate about how to do the things, it’s > > more > > like ideas what to do. If you’re going to work on that, please claim the > > project on the wiki, and possibly write more details abou the design. > > I will. The project is titled as persistent mount options, are you willing to take the more general "per-object properties" task? IMHO there's not much difference, the UI should be the same, just that it implements per-fs or per-subvolume properties like mount options. The rest of the object properties has to be collected and agreed on. I'm sure there's community knowledge of what's desired, so it's a matter of writing it down and bikeshe^Wagreement on the naming syntax. david -- 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
