On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:48:39PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-12-02 11:54, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >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. [snip] > >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 > Agreed, with something like that, it should as blatantly obvious as > possible that you can't write to the FS. > > 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.
One minor awkwardness with "norecovery", I've just realised: we already have a "recovery" mount option. That's going to make things really confusing if we stick to that name. Hugo. -- Hugo Mills | Reintarnation: Coming back from the dead as a hugo@... carfax.org.uk | hillbilly http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
