From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 19 14:55:12 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA10869 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:55:12 -0800 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA10856 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:55:08 -0800 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA24476; Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:55:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA02707; Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:55:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199503192255.OAA02707@corbin.Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: corbin.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, Remy.Card@masi.ibp.fr, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Filesystem clean flag In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Mar 95 12:24:56 PST." <199503192024.MAA24478@ref.tfs.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:55:02 -0800 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> As David Greenman wrote: >> > >> > The system should not allow mounting a dirty filesystem writable. >> >> But then, there should also be a way to get around this. The super >> user is assumed to know what he's doing -- and be it for the only >> reason to save just one [apparently good] file out of a totally >> damaged disk before newfs'ing it. > >Why would he need to mount it writeable for that ? Yes, this is why I said "writable" above. I would always want read-only to work. ...but like I just said in a previous message, an option to force the system to mount writable it wouldn't be unreasonable. -DG