On 30.12.2013 11:18, Michael Chang wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 08:43:34PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Dec 23, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Michael Chang <mch...@suse.com> wrote: >> >>> Now I tend to agree that supporting config for snapshot booting >>> shouldn't be upstream's consideration due to it's compliexity and >>> dependency to system, Despite on this, I still like to ask : Did >>> upstream think about any patch trying to provide relative path support >>> for btrfs subvolume name or id's a worthy work or not? >> >> My vague recollection is that it did used to work this way before 2.00, but >> maybe was unintended? > > It used to follow relative path of set-default volume, but was reverted > to always use absolute path of real root. It's similar to my question > but mine is to have a path intepretation per any subvolume set via > environment variable or so. > > It will work like this way. > > set btrfs_subvol=.snapshot_1 > <All path intepretation by the .snapshot_1 subvolume ..> > > set btrfs_subvol=.snapshot_2 > <All path intepretation by the .snapshot_2 subvolume ..> > > But this would bring ambiguous path back that I'm not sure a good idea > or not to have such feature. > No. Just add $btrfs_subvol into paths that you want modified. > > Yes. I think this is suggested approch for modifying grub configs. > What bothers me in hooking into grub-mkconfig is it takes time to > finish the "entire" config and will slow down snapshot tools in > creating the snapshot if we hook grub-mkconfig into it's post > processing scripts. > > Does offer an option like `--run-script=90_btrfs_snapshot` to > grub-mkconfig feasible or not? My apologies if this is off topic > here. > Not necessarry.Read my e-mail for explanation on how to do sanely and raise any problems you see with it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel