On 12/2/15 3:23 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/12/02 17:06 +0800: >> >> >> Russell Coker wrote on 2015/12/02 17:25 +1100: >>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 06:05:09 AM Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> yes, xfs does; we have "-o norecovery" if you don't want that, or need >>>> to mount a filesystem with a dirty log on a readonly device. >>> >>> That option also works with Ext3/4 so it seems to be a standard way of >>> dealing >>> with this. I think that BTRFS should do what Ext3/4 and XFS do in this >>> regard. >>> >> BTW, does -o norecovery implies -o ro? >> >> If not, how does it keep the filesystem consistent? >> >> I'd like to follow that ext2/xfs behavior, but I'm not familiar with >> those filesystems. >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >> > > OK, norecovery implies ro.
For XFS, it doesn't imply it, it requires it; i.e. both must be stated explicitly: /* * no recovery flag requires a read-only mount */ if ((mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_NORECOVERY) && !(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) { xfs_warn(mp, "no-recovery mounts must be read-only."); return -EINVAL; } ext4 is the same, I believe: } else if (test_opt(sb, NOLOAD) && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) && ext4_has_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb)) { ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "required journal recovery " "suppressed and not mounted read-only"); goto failed_mount_wq; so if you'd like btrfs to be consistent with these, I would not make norecovery imply ro; rather, make I would make it require an explicit ro, i.e. mount -o ro,norecovery -Eric > So I think it's possible to do the same thing for btrfs. > I'll try to do it soon. > > Thanks, > Qu > >> >> -- >> 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 > > -- 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