On 07/07/2014 03:46 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[... cut ...]
So to me it seems reasonable to have different rw/ro status between
btrfs root and btrfs subvolume. As use case think a system which
hosts several guests in container. Each guest has its own subvolume
as root filesystem. An user would
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:37:53 +0200 as
excerpted:
For mounted RO I mean the VFS flag, the one passed via the mount
command. I say one as 1, because I am convinced that it has to act
globally,
e.g. on the whole filesystem; the flag should be set at the first mount,
On 07/08/2014 04:43 AM, Duncan wrote:
The remaining problem to deal with is that if say the root subvol (id=5)
is mounted rw,subvolmode=rw, while a subvolume below it is mounted
subvolmode=ro, then what happens if someone tries to make an edit in the
portion of the filesystem visible in the
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes
with different ro/rw options
From: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年07月05日 01:41
Hi Qu
On 07/04/2014 03
Hi Qu
On 07/04/2014 03:28 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert
btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes with different ro/rw
options From: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it To: Qu Wenruo
quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs
[List CCd. I hate Gmail.]
Noob alert.
On 3 July 2014 02:28, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes w=
ith
different ro/rw options
From: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes
with different ro/rw options
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: 2014年07月03日 16:06
[List CCd. I hate Gmail.]
Noob
On 3 July 2014 10:33, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Oh, sorry for my confusing words.
And I probably should have waited for my frustration with my mail
client/device/public transport to subside before panicking^Creplying.
I use a combination of ro rw (not insanely nested) subvolumes
On 07/03/2014 02:28 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes with
different ro/rw options
From: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes
with different ro/rw options
From: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年07月04日 01:37
On 07/03/2014 02:28 AM
On 01.07.2014 18:36, Chris Mason wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:32 AM, David Sterba wrote:
(adding Harald to CC)
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 05:30:01PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
This reverts commit 0723a0473fb48a1c93b113a28665b64ce5faf35a.
This commit has the following problem:
1) Break the ro mount
Harald Hoyer posted on Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:59:15 +0200 as excerpted:
Pull it out, if the patch causes problems, but _please_ think about the
problem and come up with a solution, so that mount -a works with a
normal fstab.
FWIW, systemd makes it a LOT easier to manage multi-stage mounts with
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes
with different ro/rw options
From: Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com
To: Chris Mason c...@fb.com, dste...@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo
quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年
On 07/01/2014 11:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
This commit has the following problem:
1) Break the ro mount rule.
When users mount the whole btrfs ro, it is still possible to mount
subvol rw and change the contents. Which make the whole fs ro mount
non-sense.
Where is the problem ? I see an use
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert btrfs: allow mounting btrfs subvolumes
with different ro/rw options
From: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年07月03日 01:48
On 07/01/2014 11:30 AM
On 7/2/14, 3:59 AM, Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01.07.2014 18:36, Chris Mason wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:32 AM, David Sterba wrote:
(adding Harald to CC)
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 05:30:01PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
This reverts commit 0723a0473fb48a1c93b113a28665b64ce5faf35a.
This
This reverts commit 0723a0473fb48a1c93b113a28665b64ce5faf35a.
This commit has the following problem:
1) Break the ro mount rule.
When users mount the whole btrfs ro, it is still possible to mount
subvol rw and change the contents. Which make the whole fs ro mount
non-sense.
2) Cause whole btrfs
(adding Harald to CC)
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 05:30:01PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
This reverts commit 0723a0473fb48a1c93b113a28665b64ce5faf35a.
This commit has the following problem:
1) Break the ro mount rule.
When users mount the whole btrfs ro, it is still possible to mount
subvol rw and
On 07/01/2014 11:32 AM, David Sterba wrote:
(adding Harald to CC)
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 05:30:01PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
This reverts commit 0723a0473fb48a1c93b113a28665b64ce5faf35a.
This commit has the following problem:
1) Break the ro mount rule.
When users mount the whole btrfs ro,
19 matches
Mail list logo
