Re: booting btrfs

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

On 15.10.2013 21:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Andrey Borzenkov <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I do not know whether it was the case in the past, but today there is
>> *no* difference between using absolute or relative form.
> 
> There is a difference because I have a case where one works and the other 
> doesn't. But I think some regression has occurred, because this case is a 
> subvol that won't mount relative to its top level subvolume set as the 
> default subvolume; it can still be mounted with absolute path.
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg27979.html
> 
This is about kernel. Not GRUB. GRUB doesn't follow over-fancy features
like those.
> The FAQ and changelogs still indicate a distinction between full path names 
> and relative ones. But it might be related to a different regression where I 
> can't move subvols into subvols.
> 
> 
>> I'm not sure when and how top level may become != 5.
> 
> starting where you left off with the sub2 subvolume mounted
> 
> # btrfs subvol create /mnt/nested
> # btrfs subvol list /mnt
> ID 262 gen 135 top level 5 path dir1/sub1
> ID 263 gen 140 top level 5 path dir2/sub2
> ID 264 gen 140 top level 263 path nested
> 
> 
> Chris Murphy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature