Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:52:17 -0300 From: "Marcelo/Porks" <marcelorossi@gmail.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUJ Changes Message-ID: <AANLkTikBdkw5NlrGib1Qq3QASfQk2kXPHU4N0AyxGviN@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimEdvCB8UpUptZ9KeHVy1K8B4KE8un1b-k_0hs5@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005171616390.1398@desktop> <AANLkTimEdvCB8UpUptZ9KeHVy1K8B4KE8un1b-k_0hs5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/25/10, Marcelo/Porks <marcelorossi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! I tested the r208241 and it's seems to be ok but this calls my
> atention to other thing: Could I disable de SU when the SUJ is
> enabled?
>
> I did some tests and seems that I can do this (logs bellow).
>
> But will SUJ work properly with SU disabled?
Hi guys. I'm not sure if I could call this a problem but I can disable
SU when SUJ is enabled, so SUJ will remain enabled and SU will be
disabled.
#tunefs -j enable /dev/device
#tunefs -n disable /dev/device
I did a patch for sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c that disable SUJ when the user
disable SU. Maybe this will be useful for some of you.
Thanks.
Index: sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c
===================================================================
--- sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c (revision 208580)
+++ sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c (working copy)
@@ -460,6 +460,14 @@
if ((~sblock.fs_flags & FS_DOSOFTDEP) == FS_DOSOFTDEP)
warnx("%s remains unchanged as disabled", name);
else {
+ /* also disable SUJ */
+ if ((sblock.fs_flags & FS_SUJ) == FS_SUJ) {
+ warnx("soft updates journaling
will be disabled too");
+ journal_clear();
+ sblock.fs_flags &= ~FS_SUJ;
+ sblock.fs_sujfree = 0;
+ warnx("remove .sujournal to
reclaim space");
+ }
sblock.fs_flags &= ~FS_DOSOFTDEP;
warnx("%s cleared", name);
}
--
Marcelo Rossi
"This e-mail is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikBdkw5NlrGib1Qq3QASfQk2kXPHU4N0AyxGviN>