On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Andrey Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> 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/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg27979.html The FAQ and changelogs still indicate a distinction between full path names and relative ones. But it might be related to a different regression where I can't move subvols into subvols. > I'm not sure when and how top level may become != 5. starting where you left off with the sub2 subvolume mounted # btrfs subvol create /mnt/nested # btrfs subvol list /mnt ID 262 gen 135 top level 5 path dir1/sub1 ID 263 gen 140 top level 5 path dir2/sub2 ID 264 gen 140 top level 263 path nested Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
