diff options
author | Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com> | 2012-08-10 13:12:10 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 2013-01-17 08:51:20 -0800 |
commit | e4a4a559d2ba0d50059a85967b4c4c707863a65b (patch) | |
tree | f381d4348d414e9d83cb24a9ee48aca0386abc14 /Documentation/video4linux | |
parent | 3aa540b869b9bd734ec60246ae1dfe35ab3530e0 (diff) |
rbd: kill create_snap sysfs entry
Josh proposed the following change, and I don't think I could
explain it any better than he did:
From: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:22:11 -0700
To: ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <500F1203.9050605@inktank.com>
From: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>
Right now the kernel still has one piece of rbd management
duplicated from the rbd command line tool: snapshot creation.
There's nothing special about snapshot creation that makes it
advantageous to do from the kernel, so I'd like to remove the
create_snap sysfs interface. That is,
/sys/bus/rbd/devices/<id>/create_snap
would be removed.
Does anyone rely on the sysfs interface for creating rbd
snapshots? If so, how hard would it be to replace with:
rbd snap create pool/image@snap
Is there any benefit to the sysfs interface that I'm missing?
Josh
This patch implements this proposal, removing the code that
implements the "snap_create" sysfs interface for rbd images.
As a result, quite a lot of other supporting code goes away.
[elder@inktank.com: commented out rbd_req_sync_exec() to avoid warning]
Suggested-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>
(based on commit 02cdb02ceab1f3dd9ac2bc899fc51f0e0e744782)
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/video4linux')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions