[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Journaling patches
In article <20080423033339.GA18205%thoreau.thistledown.com.au@localhost>,
Simon Burge <simonb%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
>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.
Main Index |
Thread Index |