On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 14:38, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems - Burlington United States <richard.mor...@sun.com> wrote: > As you point out, the -c option is user friendly while the -depth (or > maybe -d) option is more general. There have been several requests for > the -c option. Would anyone prefer the -depth option? In what cases > would this be used? > > I was thinking when I logged the bug, that -depth (or -d) would be > useful in cases where you've got a "jurassic-like" filesystem layout, > and are interested in seeing just one or two levels. What about an optional argument to -c specifying the depth: zfs list tank tank zfs list -c tank tank tank/home tank/foo zfs list -c 2 tank tank tank/home tank/home/Ireland tank/home/UK tank/home/France tank/home/Germany tank/foo tank/f...@now tank/foo/bar That leaves -d free, at the expense of ugliness in the argument parsing. I would also suggest that 2 is a more logical number than 3 for the last set listed if -c is given an argument, since I would think of -c as "dataset and children", and -c 2 as "dataset and children squared": grandchildren, as compared to "datasets of depth 3".
I do think having the more general form available is a good thing to have. Will _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
