The two sides of reflink()
Posted May 9, 2009 21:34 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata
In reply to: The two sides of reflink()
Parent article: The two sides of reflink()
It should preserve the owner, permissions
and data to begin with, and then the caller should be able to change all
three after the fact.
The caller should be able to change the owner of the file? Or change permissions on a file, whether he owns it or not? These are not normal Unix things, except for the superuser.
That's why there's a decision to be made (or not -- has anyone considered doing one of each?)
I would use a reflink that makes new metadata (and I can then copy whatever metadata I can, like cp --archive, if I like). I wouldn't use one that clones the metadata -- that function is better served by a snapshot function that does a whole directory tree at once.
to post comments)