Re: booting btrfs

[Chris Murphy]

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

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