From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41290 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751843AbbGOMB7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:01:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:01:57 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: sander@humilis.net, "Fajar A. Nugraha" , james harvey , linux-btrfs Subject: Re: btrfs subvolume clone or fork (btrfs-progs feature request) Message-ID: <20150715120157.GF6306@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.com References: <559E6411.6090109@gmail.com> <20150709124121.GA25033@panda> <559E6D80.7010607@gmail.com> <20150709183355.GA726@twin.jikos.cz> <559FCA6D.8020800@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <559FCA6D.8020800@gmail.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:36:45AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > > Technically it's not really a bit. The snapshot relation is determined > > by the parent uuid value of a subvolume. > I'm actually kind of curious, is the parent UUID actually used for > anything outside of send/receive? AFAIK no. > >> which in turn means that certain > >> tasks are more difficult to script robustly. > > > > I don't deny the interface/output is imperfect for scripting purposes, > > maybe we can provide filters that would satisfy your usecase. > > > Personally, I don't really do much direct scripting of BTRFS related > tasks (although that might change if I can convince my boss that we > should move to BTRFS for our server systems). Most of my complaint with > the current arrangement is primarily aesthetic more than anything else. Ok understood, thanks.