Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:47:20 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Marcelo/Porks" <marcelorossi@gmail.com> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Subject: Re: SUJ Changes Message-ID: <201005271147.20155.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilQcxW02tav6LS86fUIxlDuaLPdtggmOqj6CDe1@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005171616390.1398@desktop> <201005270933.42760.jhb@freebsd.org> <AANLkTilQcxW02tav6LS86fUIxlDuaLPdtggmOqj6CDe1@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 27 May 2010 10:13:38 am Marcelo/Porks wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 May 2010 7:56:24 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Marcelo/Porks <marcelorossi@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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);
> >> > }
> >>
> > I think that attempting to disable SU if SUJ
> > is enabled should just fail with an error message. The sysadmin can then
> > choose to disable both SUJ and SU if desired.
>
> If SU is disabled and One tries to enable SUJ then SU will be
> automatically enabled.
> So Why not automatically disable SUJ when One tries to disable SU?
I'm probably not a big fan of either really. :) For something as rarely done
as tunefs I would prefer to err on the side of caution and require the admin
to explicitly specify everything.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201005271147.20155.jhb>