On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:28:30PM +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 02/08/2021 01:06, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > On 2021/8/2 上午4:52, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: > >> BTRFS volume consists of a number of subvolumes which can be mounted > >> separately > >> from each other. The top-level subvolume always exists even if no > >> subvolumes > >> were created manually. A subvolume can be denoted as the default subvolume > >> i.e. > >> the subvolume which is mounted by default. > >> > >> The default "default subvolume" is the top-level one, but this is far from > >> the > >> common practices used in the wild. For instance, openSUSE provides an OS > >> snapshot/rollback feature based on BTRFS. To achieve this, the actual OS > >> root > >> filesystem is located into a separate subvolume which is "default" but not > >> "top-level". That means that the /boot/dtb/ directory is also located > >> inside > >> this default subvolume instead of top-level one. > >> > >> However, the existing btrfs u-boot driver always uses the top-level > >> subvolume > >> as the filesystem root. This behaviour 1) is inconsistent with > >> > >> mount /dev/sda1 /target > >> > >> command, which mount the default subvolume 2) leads to the issues when > >> /boot/dtb cannot be found properly (see the reference). > > > > I also noticed the problem in the past, but forgot to fix it.... > > > >> > >> This patch uses the default subvolume as the filesystem root to overcome > >> mentioned issues. > >> > >> Reference: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185656 > >> Signed-off-by: Matwey V. Kornilov <matwey.korni...@gmail.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com> > > > > I can see that this patch is marked in your patchwork queue as "Need Review / > ACK". Qu is one of our core btrfs developer who reviewed the patch. Apart from > that we have it running on openSUSE on top of v2021.07 for some time without > any > issues.
Ah, yup. Qu is one of the people I do look for to have reviewed a btrfs patch before I apply it (and I throw things under Need Review / ACK as a note-to-self to make sure a patch does have one, when I can expect one, before applying, FWIW). > Would it be possible to merge this for v2021.10 or do you see any blocker > here? I think I had mentally filed it was feature not bugfix and was going to hold off, but since you're asking, yes, I can grab it for this release. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
