From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: TARUISI Hiroaki Subject: Re: snapshot/subvolume removal Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:04:02 +0900 Message-ID: <4B4C2CF2.5070402@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <4B43AC9B.5030109@cs.bgu.ac.il> <4B43D9AB.1090606@jp.fujitsu.com> <4B444AD5.1060501@cs.bgu.ac.il> <4B46ECBA.2030402@jp.fujitsu.com> <4B48FCCC.9050004@cs.bgu.ac.il> <4B4BC6D2.6030906@jp.fujitsu.com> <4B4C1FEA.70109@cs.bgu.ac.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: piavka@cs.bgu.ac.il Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4B4C1FEA.70109@cs.bgu.ac.il> List-ID: Yes, it's not enough reliable for all users, and it may be possible, but disk format may be the last point to change. If we want to change it, we need to discuss its necessity carefully and implement it [almost] without incompatibility. Regards, taruisi (2010/01/12 16:08), Piavlo wrote: > TARUISI Hiroaki wrote: >> Thanks for your comment. >> >> I think your request is reasonable but because there's >> no information about a hierachy of snapshots in filesystem, >> we cannot know it for now. >> >> In future, these information may be supplied by application >> programs which manage all snapshots or backups. >> > Maintaining snapshot hierarchy by external application is not reliable > and error prone > compared to maintaining it withing the btrfs itself, > probably by adding the parent treeid field for every shapshot/subvolume. > > Thanks > Alex >