[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <df92a795-3f2e-751a-8504-030015fba6d9@sandeen.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 10:49:19 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>, Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cross-fs copy support
On 10/1/18 9:48 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/10/1 下午10:32, Joshi wrote:
>> I was wondering about the cross-fs copy through copy_file_range.
>
> The term "cross-fs" looks pretty confusing.
>
> If you mean "cross-subvolume", then it should work without problem in btrfs.
>
> If you mean reflink across two different file systems (not matter the
> same fs type or not).
> Then it's impossible to work.
I believe Joshi is talking about vfs_copy_file_range() not
vfs_clone_file range(), although _copy_ does call _clone_ if it can.
> Reflink (clone_file_range) works by inserting data pointers into the
> filesystem other than really copying the data.
> Thus if the source is outside of the fs, it's really impossible to work,
> as the source pointer/data is completely out of control of the dest fs.
Yes, I would expect there to be problems with his modified kernel
for a filesystem that supports clone_file_range, because
vfs_copy_file_range() will clone if possible, and this should fail across
filesystems.
In general, though, I don't know for sure why we don't fall back to
do_splice_direct() across filesystems, although the filesystems that
implement their own ->copy_file_range ops may have their own,
further restrictions within their implementations.
This call /is/ documented in the manpage as only being valid for
files on the same filesystem, though:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/copy_file_range.2.html
-Eric
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists