[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Journaling patches
Simon Burge <simonb%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> 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.
I would say that adding journaling should not change the behavior of in
the non-journaled case. While requiring -f might be reasonable, that's
a separate discussion.
Main Index |
Thread Index |