https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438434
--- Comment #20 from [email protected] --- (In reply to Martin Steigerwald from comment #19) > There is a huge discussion following this. I do not have the time to review > it right now, however there might be something in it in order to make Baloo > work for these use cases. Many thanks for keeping watch on the topic and there is indeed a lot to read through. Do you think this: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/ could imply that the major:minor device numbers, as seen by stat (and baloo), start relating to the subvol? cf: There are long-standing problems with btrfs subvols, particularly in relation to whether and how they are exposed in the mount table. - /proc/self/mountinfo reports the major:minor device number for each filesystem and when a btrfs subvol is explicitly mounted, the number reported is wrong - it does not match what stat() reports for the mountpoint. But there does seem to be a wide range of options put forward and it's not really clear what the front runner is. For me, name_to_handle_at() returns a 20 byte handle. Having such an invariant is good, but it is big... Thanks again... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
