On May 19, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Roman Mamedov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:38 -0700 > George Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user >> perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to >> describe volumes and subvolumes. > > From a user perspective btrfs subvolumes have a lot in common with just > regular directories aka folders, and nothing in common with (block)devices. > "Describing them with virtual devices" does not seem to make a whole lot of > sense.
It's not possible to mount regular directories with other file systems. In some ways the btrfs subvolume behaves like a folder. In other ways it acts like a device. If you stat the mount point for btrfs subvolumes, you get a unique device ID for each. It seems inconsistent that mount and unmount allows a /dev/ designation, but only mount honors label and UUID. I can mount with mount /dev/disk/by-uuid/xxxxxxx, but if I use umount /dev/disk/by-uuid/xxxxxxxx I get a bogus error: umount: /dev/disk/by-uuid/xxxxxxxxxx: not mounted mount /dev/disk/by-uuid will autocomplete/list uuids in that directory, umount will not. So just from a consistency standpoint that seems broken. Chris Murphy-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
