On 2000-06-22 11:54 +0200, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > At 10:30 AM +0200 2000/6/22, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > 
> > >  I like this. Would anyone object if this was brought over from NetBSD ?
> > 
> >     If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine.
> Hmm, Kirk has valid points for leaving a softupdates filesystem identified
> by tunefs and not a mount option.

I do remember the discussion that lead to the requirement to enable 
soft-updates with tunefs -n.

But I do not remember, why the soft-updates state could not be just set 
in the local copy of the super-block and flushed to disk when the file 
system is marked dirty ?

Just before a clean file system is to be mounted R/W, it is obviously safe
to modify the soft-updates state.

The file system must have been cleaned before, or the R/W mount will not 
be possible (extra logic can prevent the modification of the MNT_SOFTDEP
bit if a mount of a non-clean partition is forced, in order to preserve 
the soft-updates state for the next fsck run).

If the kernel was compiled without soft-updates, it may be the right thing
to keep MNT_SOFTDEP cleared, to not mislead FSCK ...

Did I miss something obvious ?

Regards, STefan

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to