GNU bug report logs - #37305
[PATCH] Allow booting from a Btrfs subvolume.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #64 received at 37305 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 37305 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Allow booting from a Btrfs subvolume
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 12:13:34 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Pierre!

Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> writes:

> I'll try to test this patch, possibly today.
>
> Is the patch from the 18th of March the right one?
> The patch says it has 5 components but the last patch is
>
> [PATCH 4/5] bootloader: grub: Allow booting from a Btrfs subvolume.
>
> Is the fifth patch missing?

As I send my patches as attachments rather than with git send-email, I
simply forgot to update the subject line counter.  There are four
patches in total, although the hack in 0001 was controversial so is
included as a curiosity only. I've rebased the 4 patches on current
master, and fixed some conflict that arose in the initrd code.

[0001-gnu-tests-Reduce-the-time-required-to-run-the-system.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-linux-boot-Refactor-boot-system.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-file-systems-Add-helpers-for-parsing-the-options-str.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0004-bootloader-grub-Allow-booting-from-a-Btrfs-subvolume.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 6 (text/plain, inline)]

I'll test those rebased patches as well.  The automated system tests no
longer pass -- although it might not be specific to this change (I'll
try running the "installed-os" test to see if all the install tests are
broken or just this new "btrfs-root-on-subvolume-os" one.).  In case you
are not familiar with system tests, a single system test can be run
with:

make check-system TESTS="btrfs-root-on-subvolume-os"

The install tests are defined under (gnu tests install) and are *very*
expensive to run (mostly in time, but they require some disk space as
well).  Hence the hack in 0001, but I'm not sure if it brings as much
benefits as when I made it (given Ludovic keeps improving the way Guix
gets built :-)).

A fresh benchmark could be interesting if you have lots of time on your
hands.

Thank you for looking at this!

Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.