On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 03:55:44AM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: > We were setting the BTRFS_ROOT_SUBVOL_DEAD flag on the root of the > parent of our target snapshot, instead of setting it in the target > snapshot's root. > > This is easy to observe by running the following scenario: > > mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdd > mount /dev/sdd /mnt > > btrfs subvolume create /mnt/first_subvol > btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/mysnap1 > > btrfs subvolume delete /mnt/first_subvol > btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/mysnap2 > > btrfs send -p /mnt/mysnap1 /mnt/mysnap2 -f /tmp/send.data > > The send command failed because the send ioctl returned -EPERM. > A test case for xfstests follows. > > Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdman...@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> Thanks for catching it, I was so focused on verifying the locks to do what they're supposed to do and missed the typo, not that the variable names help to avoid confusion. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
