> Part of the trick here is that the fsync()s are skipped, but I think > even if none of the above were problems, then we'd still need to > fsync() stuff to get the actual filesystem entries to make sense, so > the currently missing directory fsync()s might be a worse problem for > such reflinking than the proposed disabled file data fsync()s in the > patch. But I've not checked how reflinking interacts in general with > fsync()s, etc. Hi, I've removed the fsync() just because when using reflinks there isn't any file data to flush. If you reintroduce them, the performances will not vary that much. Regards, -- Matteo Croce

perl -e 'for($t=0;;$t++){print chr($t*($t>>8|$t>>13)&255)}' |aplay

Reply via email to