On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:31:25PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > >> > >> + info->mount_opt = info->super_copy->default_mount_opt; > > > > the options have to respect some priority, eg. when I set default > > options to a filesystem, but mount with a different set, I expect that > > the explicit flags apply and override the defaults. > > > > I don't remember if this was discussed in the mailinglist or on IRC > > only, should be easy to dig up if needed. > > At least I don't know whether this was already disscussed or not.
For the subset you've selected, whole-fs default options, I now think we don't need it, the discussions we had were about option precedence for per -file, -subvolume, -fs, -mount. At the time of mount only per-mount and per-fs need to sort their precedence. Any per-file option has to be evaluated at a specific time eg. when new data are written in case of compression. > Now my code gives priority to the default options, and it would not > be so difficult in case if we have opposing options like "ssd" vs > "nossd", and "space_cache" vs "no_space_cache"... Yep, that's what I expect to temporarily disable a specific option, eg. the space_cache. For that purpose the full set of options with their no- counterparts would make sense from the usability POV (although there may be exceptions). > Or we could use the default options only if there is no options > specified when it is being mount, but it will make the default > options useless. You mean in case of a simple mount /dev/ice /mnt ? This seems like a limited use of the defaults and may be confusing. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
