Re: booting btrfs

[Chris Murphy]

On Oct 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> On 15.10.2013 21:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Andrey Borzenkov <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I do not know whether it was the case in the past, but today there is
>>> *no* difference between using absolute or relative form.
>> 
>> There is a difference because I have a case where one works and the other 
>> doesn't. But I think some regression has occurred, because this case is a 
>> subvol that won't mount relative to its top level subvolume set as the 
>> default subvolume; it can still be mounted with absolute path.
>> 
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg27979.html
>> 
> This is about kernel. Not GRUB. GRUB doesn't follow over-fancy features
> like those.

I understand that, but as a matter of follow-up to Andrey's post which was not 
directly related to GRUB, I thought it was appropriate to point out the 
unexpected behavior I'm seeing. And btrfs-progs is discussed at linux-btrfs@, 
not just kernel issues.

It's an open question for me, now, whether set-default is really working the 
way it's supposed to. For all I know it changes things on-disk in a way that 
also affects GRUB behavior contrary to expectations. So I think it's reasonable 
to be sure the expectations are properly aligned, and go from there.

The regression testing I've done is not close to exhaustive but the behavior 
I'm seeing in GRUB and in booted linux, are different from behaviors maybe two 
or three years ago. So the fact both have changed behaviors might be a bug 
that's in common and worth exploring.


Chris Murphy