From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hugo Mills Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Control filesystem balances (kernel side) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:05:58 +0000 Message-ID: <20101101130558.GB4709@vlad.carfax.org.uk> References: <20101030000726.286517546@carfax.org.uk> <201010301944.35962.kreijack@libero.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz" Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Goffredo Baroncelli Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201010301944.35962.kreijack@libero.it> List-ID: --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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/