Sorry, seems that the previous message was corrupted by the client.
On 30/12/24 11:59, Matteo Croce wrote:
> 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
