From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aaron Straus Subject: Re: [PATCH] start work on delete snapshot code Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:42:37 -0800 Message-ID: <20090210014237.GA31158@merfinllc.com> References: <1234224453-4227-1-git-send-email-aaron@merfinllc.com> <1234228148.17365.34.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1234228148.17365.34.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> List-ID: On Feb 09 08:09 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > Sorry to say that I won't have time to read through this in the morning, > but this is a pretty hefty task for a first patch. Thanks for taking it > on and posting this work! No worries... I just wanted to learn more about btrfs... so it seemed like a good project, especially if nobody else is working on it. I don't think my patch actually works correctly, but I'm hoping someone who understands both the VFS and btrfs can fix it up or at least use it as a starting point. -- Quick question about the root_refs for you or anyone else on the list. Let's say we have: base/s1 where base is a subvolume and s1 is a snapshot. So base has a root_ref to s1 and s1 has a back_ref to base in the tree root. Now let's say we make a snapshot of base so we have: base/s1 base.snap/s1 So we have s1, the same tree root referenced in two separate snapshots. Now should s1 should now have two back_refs, one to base and one to base.snap? Also base.snap show have a root_ref to s1? That doesn't seem to happen with the current snapshotting code, unless I'm missing something... I'm happy to try to add a patch if that is indeed what should happen... Regards, =a= -- =================== Aaron Straus aaron@merfinllc.com