Message383996
| Author | Albert.Zeyer |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Albert.Zeyer, StyXman, desbma, facundobatista, giampaolo.rodola, martin.panter, ncoghlan, neologix, pablogsal, petr.viktorin, vstinner |
| Date | 2020-12-29.13:05:56 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1609247156.59.0.51614595307.issue37159@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
According to the man page of copy_file_range (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/copy_file_range.2.html), copy_file_range also should support copy-on-write: > copy_file_range() gives filesystems an opportunity to implement > "copy acceleration" techniques, such as the use of reflinks > (i.e., two or more inodes that share pointers to the same copy- > on-write disk blocks) or server-side-copy (in the case of NFS). Is this wrong? However, while researching more about FICLONE vs copy_file_range, I found e.g. this: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24399 Which suggests that there are other problems with copy_file_range? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2020-12-29 13:05:56 | Albert.Zeyer | set | recipients: + Albert.Zeyer, facundobatista, ncoghlan, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, StyXman, petr.viktorin, neologix, martin.panter, desbma, pablogsal |
| 2020-12-29 13:05:56 | Albert.Zeyer | set | messageid: <1609247156.59.0.51614595307.issue37159@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2020-12-29 13:05:56 | Albert.Zeyer | link | issue37159 messages |
| 2020-12-29 13:05:56 | Albert.Zeyer | create | |