Zachary Vance posted on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:46:13 -0700 as excerpted:
> I was already making sure all -c references were both present and
> unmodified, I think the confusion is mostly around whether the parent
> required to use -c, and whether it's an implicit reference volume in
> particular. If
>>> Reproduction case after running into the same problem as Paride
>>> Legovini:
>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/48706/match=send
Your case is not the same as in this thread from Paride IMO. The error
message is the same, but that doesn't mean the call tree leading to i
+linux-btrfs and with new policy
On 04/16/2016 08:37 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Zachary Vance posted on Sat, 16 Apr 2016 13:08:17 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> Reproduction case after running into the same problem as Paride
>> Legovini:
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/48706/match=sen
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Zachary Vance wrote:
> To recap, the basic problem is that you can get into a state where
> "btrfs-send -c" fails for a subvolume, with "ERROR: parent
> determination failed for 9622". It appears the problem happens when
> the 'parent_uuid' does not exist.
>
> I'm
