From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 7 5:21:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mobile.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE4237B4EC for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f17DKZt59823; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:20:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <200102071320.f17DKZt59823@mobile.wemm.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Maxime Henrion , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Matt Dillon , Greg Black Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) In-Reply-To: <1192.981551707@critter> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 05:20:35 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200102071312.f17DCHt59672@mobile.wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes: > >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <20010207111952.B484@nebula.cybercable.fr>, Maxime Henrion writ es: > >> > >> > >> >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 ? It would work fine, but Kirk told me not to bother submitting patches because he had something else in mind (or at least, that's the way I interpreted the mail). Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message