On 22/09/15 21:10, Anna Schumaker wrote: > On 09/14/2015 02:32 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 09:50:18AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> Hi Anna,
>>> Furthermore, I even wonder if explicitly specifying flags as >>> COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK should just generate an EINVAL >>> error. 0 already gives us the behavior described above, >>> and allowing the combination COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK >>> perhaps just contributes to misleading the user that these >>> flags are orthogonal, when in reality they are not. What do >>> you think? >> >> Personally, I think it's a little weird that one turns on reflink with a >> flag; >> turns on regular copy with a different flag; and turns on both by not >> specifying either flag. :) > > Is there a better behavior for flags=0? I was thinking this would be what > people want when they don't care how the copy happens in the kernel. As a user, I'm fine with this default and the interface in general. thanks, Pádraig. -- 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
