svn commit: r213398 - head/bin/rm

Pawel Jakub Dawidek pjd at
Fri Oct 8 15:14:36 UTC 2010

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:32:38PM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> On Mon, 04.10.2010 at 14:04:53 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > On 4 October 2010 13:42, Alexander Best <arundel at> wrote:
> > 
> > > good point. ZFS should really be added to the list and LFS should go away. are
> > > there any other relevant filesystems without a fixed-block size that need to be
> > > mentioned? what about afs? or tmpfs?
> > 
> > (it's not that the block sizes aren't fixed, it's that the assignment
> > of blocks to the file is not fixed).
> Review of attached patch, anyone? I didn't come up with a clever way to
> describe non-COW file systems :/

Looks good, but I'd use a bit different wording. Instead of:

+option assumes that the underlying file system does not allocate new blocks
+when writing to existing blocks.

Maybe something like this:

+option assumes that the underlying file system updates existing blocks
+in-place and does not store new data in new location.


Pawel Jakub Dawidek             
pjd at                 
FreeBSD committer                         Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the svn-src-all mailing list