On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100 Goffredo Baroncelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100 > > Goffredo Baroncelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are > >> right > >> when you don't like "disk-usage". What about "btrfs filesystem > >> chunk-usage" ? > > > > Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic here, i.e. "look > > this > > is not just filesystem usage, this is filesystem CHUNK usage"... Consistency > > of having a matching "dev usage" and "fi usage" would have been nicer. > > > What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ? Uhm? Had to reread this several times, but it looks like you're repeating exactly the same question that I was already answering in the quoted part. To clarify even more, personally I'd like if there would have been "btrfs dev usage" and "btrfs fi usage". Do not see the need to specifically make the 2nd one "chunk-usage" instead of simply "usage". -- With respect, Roman
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
