Re: Journaling patches

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20080423033339.GA18205%thoreau.thistledown.com.au@localhost>,
Simon Burge  <simonb%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
>Hi Bill,
>
>On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:05:20PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:09PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
>>
>> > There is one other behavioural change.  You now need to use the "-f"
>> > option to mount a dirty filesystem.  I'm not sure of the original reason
>> > for this, and am not sure if this behaviour is desirable or not.  Any
>> > comments?
>> 
>> Why? The whole idea with journaling is that once you play the journal, the 
>> file system is consistent. So why need -f?
>> 
>> Yes, things can happen, which is why we still have fsck. But I think we 
>> shouldn't need -f with a journal.
>
>Oh, I wasn't clear enough .. the non-journaled case now requires -f to
>mount an unclean filesystem with the current WAPBL patch.  The journaled
>case works as you describe/expect.

Makes sense to me. 
My only concern about applying the patch to current is that the on-disk
layout of the log might change and people will need to have a way to upgrade
their log format. For that we need to make sure that all versions of WAPBL
filesystems are clearly recognizable.

christos