On 2015-10-16 01:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:24:51AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> My only point with saying we shouldn't reflink by default is that there are
>> many (unintelligent) people who will assume that since the syscall has copy
>> in it's name, that's what it will do; and, while I don't think we should
>> cater to such individuals, it does make sense to have a syscall that says in
>> it's name that it copies data actually do so by default.
>
> As far as the user is concerned a reflink is a copy.  A very efficient
> copy.
I should have been specific, what I meant was that some people will 
assume that it actually creates a physical, on-disk byte-for-byte copy 
of the data.  There are many people out there (and sadly I have to deal 
with some at work) who are absolutely terrified of the concept of data 
deduplication, and will likely refuse to use this syscall for _anything_ 
if it reflinks by default on filesystems that support it.