On 18.10.2011 21:04, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:02:09PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote: >> Reproducer for the curious: >> >> # mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdv2 >> # mount /dev/sdv2 /mnt >> # btrfs subvol snap /mnt /mnt/snap1 >> # btrfs subvol snap /mnt /mnt/snap2 >> # btrfs subvol snap /mnt /mnt/snap3 >> >> When snap2 was created, there was a dir item for snap1, so this is no >> surprise: >> >> # ls -lai /mnt/snap2 >> total 8 >> 256 dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 20 Jan 1 1970 . >> 256 dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 30 Jan 1 1970 .. >> 2 drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Oct 18 16:25 snap1 >> >> Inode 2 seems a bit strange, but stay tuned. When snap3 was created, >> there were dir items for snap1 and snap2, so ... *drumroll* >> >> # ls -lai /mnt/snap3 >> total 8 >> 256 dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 30 Jan 1 1970 . >> 256 dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 30 Jan 1 1970 .. >> 2 drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Oct 18 16:26 snap1 >> 2 drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Oct 18 16:26 snap2 > > The way I see it it's expected, at least conceptually. There might be I'm sure this violates some specification, and yes, I agree, it's conceptually. Let's wait for some real complaints :-) Jan > something wrong in the implementation that confuses dcache, etc. I'll > take a look and try to fix it if nobody beats me. > > Thanks, > > Ilya -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
