On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On Saturday, 30 October, 2010, Hugo Mills wrote: > > One fundamental question, though -- is the progress monitor > > function best implemented as an ioctl, as I've done here, or should it > > be two or three sysfs files? I'm thinking of /proc/mdstat... > > Obviously, /proc/mdstat would never get into /sys, but exposing the > > "expected" and "remaining" values as files has an attractive > > simplicity to it. > > I like the idea that these info should be put under sysfs. Something like > > /sys/btrfs// /sys/fs/btrfs/ I think. Also: /sys/fs/btrfs/