From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 7 5:15:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356F737B491 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:15:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f17DF7H01194; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:15:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Peter Wemm Cc: Maxime Henrion , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Matt Dillon , Greg Black Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Feb 2001 05:12:17 PST." <200102071312.f17DCHt59672@mobile.wemm.org> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:15:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1192.981551707@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200102071312.f17DCHt59672@mobile.wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <20010207111952.B484@nebula.cybercable.fr>, Maxime Henrion writes: >> >> >> >What do you think of what NetBSD implemented ? softupdates is now enabled vi > a >> >a mount option. This seems cleaner than the tunefs -n enable thing. >> >> I have never understood why it was a tunefs thing... > >So that fsck(8) can see what mode the FS *was* mounted in last time. That >bears no relationship to fstab or the current options. Right, so if mounting in softupdates mode updates the superblock to set the softupdates flag, why wouldn't that work ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message