From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ken Drummond Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] btrfs: allow cross-subvolume BTRFS_IOC_CLONE Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 01:51:19 +1000 Message-ID: <1301759479.8770.8.camel@tankquad> References: <20110331063636.GA5297@infradead.org> <1301572893-sup-3464@think> <20110401133405.GA17956@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Christoph Hellwig To: linux-btrfs Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110401133405.GA17956@infradead.org> List-ID: On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 09:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:02:22AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > Excerpts from Christoph Hellwig's message of 2011-03-31 02:36:36 -0400: > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:00:11AM -0400, Larry D'Anna wrote: > > > > This is a simple patch to allow reflinks to be made crossing subvolume > > > > boundaries. > > > > > > NAK. subvolumes will have to become vfsmounts sooner or later, and we > > > really must not support any operations spanning mountpoints. > > > > > > > Sorry, I disagree here. reflinks were always intended to be able to > > span subvolumes. There's no conflict at all because they span different > > inodes. > > I don't think it's a good idea to introduce any user visible operations > over subvolume boundaries. Currently we don't have any operations over > mount boundaries, which is pretty fumdamental to the unix filesystem > semantics. If you want to change this please come up with a clear > description of the semantics and post it to linux-fsdevel for > discussion. That of course requires a clear description of the > btrfs subvolumes, which is still completely missing. > I don't really understand the details here, but doesn't the creation of a snapshot already lead to data extents being shared between sub-volumes? From a simple user perspective this sounds like a very useful capability.