On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:15:30PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > Adding the transaction before the "if (flags & BTRFS_SUBVOL_RDONLY)"
> > condition makes it much worse. The "is subvolume in send" test is
> > supposed to be lightweight and should not shoot down the whole
> > filesystem. The usec
On 29.09.2017 20:56, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:53:18AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Currently when a read-only snapshot is received and subsequently its ro
>> property
>> is set to false i.e. switched to rw-mode the received_uuid of that subvol
>> remains
>> intact. H
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:53:18AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Currently when a read-only snapshot is received and subsequently its ro
> property
> is set to false i.e. switched to rw-mode the received_uuid of that subvol
> remains
> intact. However, once the received volume is switched to RW
Currently when a read-only snapshot is received and subsequently its ro property
is set to false i.e. switched to rw-mode the received_uuid of that subvol
remains
intact. However, once the received volume is switched to RW mode we cannot
guaranteee that it contains the same data, so it makes sense
