On 2015-12-02 11:54, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Agreed, with something like that, it should as blatantly obvious as possible that you can't write to the FS.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, QuOK, 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
On a side note, do either XFS or ext4 support removing the norecovery option from the mount flags through mount -o remount? Even if they don't, that might be a nice feature to have in BTRFS if we can safely support it.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature