From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:58887 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750950AbdHNGhP (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 02:37:15 -0400 Subject: Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut? To: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Anton Mitterer Cc: Btrfs BTRFS References: <84806456-eed9-00b9-b3f6-99e46cefba33@swiftspirit.co.za> <4c094049-f8c8-a0ea-674b-33c6905d744a@gmx.com> <1502496618.6092.6.camel@scientia.net> <20170812074248.GA3352@infradead.org> From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:36:34 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170812074248.GA3352@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2017年08月12日 15:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 02:10:18AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: >> Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> Although Btrfs can disable data CoW, nodatacow also disables data >>> checksum, which is another main feature for btrfs. >> >> Then decoupling of the two should probably decoupled and support for >> notdatacow+checksumming be implemented?! > > And how are you going to write your data and checksum atomically when > doing in-place updates? Exactly, that's the main reason I can figure out why btrfs disables checksum for nodatacow. Thanks, Qu > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >