From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gardel.0pointer.net ([85.214.157.71]:46375 "EHLO gardel.0pointer.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752872AbbCWFBZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:01:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 05:53:14 +0100 From: Lennart Poettering To: Chris Murphy Cc: kreijack@inwind.it, systemd Mailing List , linux-btrfs Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] systemd and nested Btrfs subvolumes Message-ID: <20150323045314.GD19498@gardel-login> References: <550C7655.10907@libero.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 20.03.15 18:08, Chris Murphy (lists@colorremedies.com) wrote: > Sure but now it's missing if you do a rollback, or if you mount any > different root tree, so immediately special handling is needed. > > If machines is a subvolume at the top level, it can always be mounted > at /var/lib/machines regardless of which root is used. > > I also think this is more consistent with > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html > specifically the section "What We Propose" when it comes to the > location and naming convention for Btrfs subvolumes. containers are recursively stackable, hence having toplevel subvolumes doesn't work, since the containers should be able to have subcontainers of their own... Also, it kinda defeats the whole point of btrfs' subvolume concept, where subvolumes are little more than special directories. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat