On 15.10.2013 21:47, Chris Murphy wrote: > > 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 > This is about kernel. Not GRUB. GRUB doesn't follow over-fancy features like those. > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
