Re: booting btrfs

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

On 30.12.2013 11:18, Michael Chang wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 08:43:34PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Michael Chang <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Now I tend to agree that supporting config for snapshot booting
>>> shouldn't be upstream's consideration due to it's compliexity and
>>> dependency to system, Despite on this, I still like to ask : Did
>>> upstream think about any patch trying to provide relative path support
>>> for btrfs subvolume name or id's a worthy work or not?
>>
>> My vague recollection is that it did used to work this way before 2.00, but 
>> maybe was unintended?
> 
> It used to follow relative path of set-default volume, but was reverted
> to always use absolute path of real root. It's similar to my question
> but mine is to have a path intepretation per any subvolume set via
> environment variable or so.
> 
> It will work like this way.
> 
> set btrfs_subvol=.snapshot_1
> <All path intepretation by the .snapshot_1 subvolume ..>
> 
> set btrfs_subvol=.snapshot_2
> <All path intepretation by the .snapshot_2 subvolume ..>
> 
> But this would bring ambiguous path back that I'm not sure a good idea
> or not to have such feature.
> 
No. Just add $btrfs_subvol into paths that you want modified.
> 
> Yes. I think this is suggested approch for modifying grub configs.
> What bothers me in hooking into grub-mkconfig is it takes time to
> finish the "entire" config and will slow down snapshot tools in
> creating the snapshot if we hook grub-mkconfig into it's post
> processing scripts.
> 
> Does offer an option like `--run-script=90_btrfs_snapshot` to
> grub-mkconfig feasible or not? My apologies if this is off topic
> here.
> 
Not necessarry.Read my e-mail for explanation on how to do sanely and
raise any problems you see with it.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature