On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:08 +0100, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > > It's intentionally not umounted. Ntfsresize __rewrites__ NTFS and it's > > > dangerous to umount because that could interfer, corrupt or destroy the > > > resized, consistent NTFS. > > > > Do you not keep the "ntfs_volume" of the mount consistent with your > > changes? If yes you should umount and it is not dangerous. If not why > > not? > > There are two NTFS during resizing. The original and the resized. When > the resizing is over then the latter is consistent and the old one is > irrelevant. ntfsresize doesn't work like the other utilities: mount, modify, > umount. It works like: mount and morph the original into a new one.
Looking at the source code, you appear to be holding the ntfs_volume in your "resize" structure and then use it everywhere to write to the volume. For example you keep calling write_mft_record() which just calls the libntfs provided ntfs_mft_record_write()... So you better have that ntfs_volume be a consistent view of the volume at any point in time or things will break anyway... I cannot see anywhere you having two different ntfs_volume structures. Apologies if I have missed it. Perhaps you can point out the code to me where you have two volumes as I cannot see it... However, given things still work, and given that ntfsresize now works for Vista for me when it did not do so before I would say unmounting is both safe and required for ntfsresize. (-; Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]