On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:34:06AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> When creating a btrfs volume with mkfs.btrfs, I'm noticing that the
> first 64KB are completely blank. Is this gap expressly intended for
> installing a boot manager/loader?
If you want some historical reading check out the 'BTRFS par
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:34:06AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> When creating a btrfs volume with mkfs.btrfs, I'm noticing that the
> first 64KB are completely blank. Is this gap expressly intended for
> installing a boot manager/loader? e.g. GRUB 2 allows installation of
> boot.img + core.img into
No idea what that means.
On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Rock Lee wrote:
> Maybe this function could give you a little explanation.
>
> static inline u64 btrfs_sb_offset(int mirror)
> {
>u64 start = 16 * 1024;
>if (mirror)
>return start << (BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_SHIFT * mirror);
>
Maybe this function could give you a little explanation.
static inline u64 btrfs_sb_offset(int mirror)
{
u64 start = 16 * 1024;
if (mirror)
return start << (BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_SHIFT * mirror);
return BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET;
}
and BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET is (64 * 1024)
2012/
When creating a btrfs volume with mkfs.btrfs, I'm noticing that the first 64KB
are completely blank. Is this gap expressly intended for installing a boot
manager/loader? e.g. GRUB 2 allows installation of boot.img + core.img into a
btrfs formatted partition, without using block lists (the --forc
