Tony Hutter

> The difference here being: if the leaf vdev is set to none, we check its parent, and recurse all the way up to the root vdev. Basically faking inheritance....

> I've added a few test cases: Thanks! :+1: > The difference here being: if the leaf vdev is set to none, we check its parent, and recurse all the...

@allanjude - Sorry, you were right - I got the terminology wrong. It should be: ``` root vdev (the pool) | top level vdev (mirror-0) | leaf vdev ``` I...

@allanjude thanks for the info. I just noticed that `zpool get` has a special `all-vdevs` option: ``` zpool get [-Hp] [-o field[,field]…] all|property[,property]… pool [all-vdevs|vdev]… Retrieves the given list of...

> The issue with doing a set all-vdevs rather than some kind of inheritance, is that the value won't persist through a zpool replace or apply to any newer vdevs....

> This is why we were thinking of the root-vdev property, so you could set a default basically at the pool level, but then still be able to override it...

> The syntax does not current exist. It would need to be different than that for pool properties, like zpool set checksum_t=4242 tank root-vdev or something Here's how I would...

@ryao thanks, included

@ryao included in my latest push

@freqlabs it appears https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/48ab427e9dbed2a98ac97e1d62851ee70701b2d5 was squashed into https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/a7bd20e309a4b45b18b1da8e379f5826debe4870 at the time of merge. I'll try to pull all requested commits in.