From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFBDC07E9B for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 04:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32746143C for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 04:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229487AbhGIEIH (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:08:07 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:48466 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229441AbhGIEIG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:08:06 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F1B20263; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 04:05:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1625803523; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4j/C6nvscC32JAPO5bQWV2jZrufIjY6+YK06V2/Jor0=; b=axPlcw0K/mIHQO+j6ivdbimAeXad/2eGer+d8gr9GzRCwfB5zvaf+0/EmEOOsGq6Siazbg p2f+YU2kHDU+UVCnLC3OS0ZVdZav0kIiTjUdnLKJEdElytCGuyKktO/RbKAqg6kKEq1r/+ 30qs6ZKyNWqUcq0fwIpkyru6vD27C0I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1625803523; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4j/C6nvscC32JAPO5bQWV2jZrufIjY6+YK06V2/Jor0=; b=OLM/eAtFcD1UPoQ9OH/P6h5nlupym8E91fX94bEmAMg1a7e80yNBdNhSAb20kNorUTE4TL S6urbdjG7LDDEfCA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A96413B26; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 04:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 1LX1MgHL52CiJAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 09 Jul 2021 04:05:21 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "NeilBrown" To: "Graham Cobb" Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cannot use btrfs for nfs server In-reply-to: <56c40592-0937-060a-5f8a-969d8a88d541@cobb.uk.net> References: <20210310074620.GA2158@tik.uni-stuttgart.de>, <20210311074636.GA28705@tik.uni-stuttgart.de>, <20210708221731.GB8249@tik.uni-stuttgart.de>, <56c40592-0937-060a-5f8a-969d8a88d541@cobb.uk.net> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 14:05:16 +1000 Message-id: <162580351661.31036.9394219230568776900@noble.neil.brown.name> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 09 Jul 2021, Graham Cobb wrote: >=20 > > How/where can I escalate it further? >=20 > Try complaining to NFS. It might be that it would work better if NFS > assigned different NFS filesystem IDs to each subvolume - I don't know. >=20 >=20 Better than complaining...: Apply the patch you can find at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/162457725899.28671.14092003979067994699@no= ble.neil.brown.name/T/#mc4752a019af79cbb166d5338d6ed0db141832546 then apply the fix described at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/162457725899.28671.14092003979067994699@no= ble.neil.brown.name/T/#mc26984e10e7837e28aca3209fcb03b38a4df6fe7 which I think is shown in more detail in a subsequent message in the thread. Then confirm for yourself that it works. Then reply to that thread (or send a new message to linux-nfs) saying somethi= ng like: Hi, I've been having problems with NFS and btrfs too. I found this patch and it works really well for me. Any chance we can get it included upstream?=20 That might spur us on to further action - enthusiasm is much better than complaints :-) (the problem is not that NFS doesn't assign different filesystem IDs, the problem is that NFSd doesn't tell NFS that there are different volumes). NeilBrown