Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:18000 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753642AbbIIUJ6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:09:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:09:21 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Andy Lutomirski CC: "Darrick J. Wong" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig?= Brady , Anna Schumaker , , Linux btrfs Developers List , Linux FS Devel , Linux API , Zach Brown , Al Viro , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , , Christoph Hellwig , Coreutils Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] VFS: In-kernel copy system call Message-ID: <20150909200921.GD9511@ret.masoncoding.com> References: <1441397823-1203-1-git-send-email-Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com> <55EEFCEE.5090000@draigBrady.com> <55EF279B.3020101@Netapp.com> <55EF3EFD.3080302@draigBrady.com> <20150908212907.GD30681@birch.djwong.org> <20150908223959.GE30681@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:08:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> What I meant by this was: if you ask for "regular copy", you may end > >> up with a reflink anyway. Anyway, how can you reflink a range and > >> have the contents *not* be the same? > > > > reflink forcibly remaps fd_dest's range to fd_src's range. If they didn't > > match before, they will afterwards. > > > > dedupe remaps fd_dest's range to fd_src's range only if they match, of course. > > > > Perhaps I should have said "...if the contents are the same before the call"? > > > > Oh, I see. > > Can we have a clean way to figure out whether two file ranges are the > same in a way that allows false negatives? I.e. return 1 if the > ranges are reflinks of each other and 0 if not? Pretty please? I've > implemented that in the past on btrfs by syncing the ranges and then > comparing FIEMAP output, but that's hideous. I'd almost rather have a separate call, maybe unshare_file_range()? Is that the end goal to the sharing check? -chris