On 10/01/09 05:08 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
In the future there will be a distinction between the local and the
received values see the recently (yesterday) approved case PSARC/2009/510:
http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2009/510/20090924_tom.erickson
Currently non-recursive incremental streams send properties and full
streams don't. Will the "p" flag reverse its meaning for incremental
streams? For my purposes the current behavior is the exact opposite
of what I need and it isn't obvious that the case addresses this
peculiar inconsistency without going through a lot of hoops. I suppose
the new properties can be sent initially so that subsequent incremental
streams won't override the possibly changed local properties, but that
seems so complicated :-). If I understand the case correctly, we can
now set a flag that says "ignore properties sent by any future incremental
non-recursive stream". This instead of having a flag for incremental
streams that says "don't send properties". What happens if sometimes
we do and sometimes we don't? Sounds like a static property when a
dynamic flag is really what is wanted and this is a complicated way of
working around a design inconsistency. But maybe I missed something :-)
So what would the semantics of the new "p" flag be for non-recursive
incremental streams?
Thanks -- Frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
