Don Cragun wrote: >> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:48:08 -0800 (PST) >> From: Matthew Ahrens <ahrens at sac.SFBay.Sun.COM> >> Subject: zfs rollback -f operative [PSARC/2007/699 Self Review] > ... ... ... >> 4. Technical Description >> 1.0 Description >> >> Contrary to PSARC/2007/673 "zfs rollback -f obsolescence", the -f flag >> to zfs rollback has meaning in some cirsumstances. In particular, when >> doing a "zfs rollback -Rf", it will force the unmount of any clones >> which will be destroyed. >> > ... ... ... > > I'm confused. > > Is the intent of PSARC/2007/699 to withdraw PSARC/2007/673 and back out > the changes introduced by CRs 6421210 ``zfs rollback without > unmounting'' and 6635790 ``"zfs rollback -f" removal breaks backwards > compatibility''? If so, why create a new case rather than updating > 2007/673? If not, what is the overall change after fixes for both > cases are integrated?
Yes, for the most part, the intent of PSARC/2007/699 is to withdraw PSARC/2007/673. Sorry I wasn't aware of that procedure for modifying an approved (even if "approved automatic") case. As a minor detail, I should note that the net change from before 673 to after 699 is that the -f flag does not cause the named filesystem to be force unmounted (since it is no longer unmounted). However, the -f flag continues to cause clones to be force-unmounted when used with the -R flag. These changes are also noted in manpage bug 6644855. > At the very least, shouldn't the IAM files for 2007/673 and 2007/699 > include see also comments pointing to each other? Sure. > P.S. I also note that the zfs(1M) man page has been updated to say the > following about zfs rollback -f: > "This obsolete option is ignored, but accepted for backwards > compatibility." > even though both 6421210 and 6635790 say that documentation is > not affected, and there is no mention of obsolete interfaces in > the interface stability table on the zfs(1M) man page. The manpage has been updated to reflect 673 but not 699. It will be updated to reflect 699 shortly. The manpage bug is 6644855. I'll update the bugs to mark them "fix affects documentation". --matt
