From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 1 15:47:10 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2304010657D6; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:47:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF928FC13; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9461D46C0C; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 00E258A027; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:47:07 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:25:00 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100217; KDE/4.3.1; amd64; ; ) References: <9EA890DC-CDCF-4E12-BB0E-063153400AB6@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <9EA890DC-CDCF-4E12-BB0E-063153400AB6@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006011125.00062.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:47:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: SUJ and "mount" reporting X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:47:10 -0000 On Monday 31 May 2010 6:44:07 am Scott Long wrote: > On May 31, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > > On 05/31/10 02:25, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> > >>> Shouldn't SU+J be visible in the output of "mount" somehow? I've just > >>> enabled it on a root file system of a machine and while tunefs and > >>> dumpfs report both soft-updates and SUJ are enabled (after reboot), > >>> the "mount" command only shows "soft-updates". Alternative question: > >>> how to verify is it active on a live file system? > >>> > >>> (running CURRENT from a few hours ago, kernel&world synced) > >> > >> As previously stated - this is a hack to do what I think you are > >> asking for: > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20100309-03-mount.diff > > > > Yes, this looks like it... > > > >> Using tunefs, etc. for now would be better. > > > > I did use tunefs, as I've said, but I'm concerned what would happen (if > > it can - stale kernel?) if the superblock that tunefs reads from the > > disk and the kernel state are different. > > > > MNT_* flags need to be deprecated, and the attributes passed in both directions as key-value pairs. I don't know if anyone else has thought about this and what it means for backwards compatibility. My understanding of nmount() is that that is what it does now. However, not everything is fully updated for nmount(). struct nfsargs is still passed in as a blob value with the key "nfsargs" for example. Presumably SUJ could be reported the same way SU is done now. -- John Baldwin