From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jun 22 4:32:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mout1.freenet.de (mout1.freenet.de [194.97.50.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9C937C268; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:32:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from [62.104.201.2] (helo=mx1.freenet.de) by mout1.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #3) id 1355Da-00010A-00; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:32:22 +0200 Received: from [213.6.106.2] (helo=StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org) by mx1.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #3) id 1355Da-00035k-00; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:32:22 +0200 Received: by StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org (Postfix, from userid 200) id 7E273CD7; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:31:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:31:29 +0200 From: Stefan Esser To: Adrian Chadd Cc: mckusick@mckusick.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Stefan Esser Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep.c Message-ID: <20000622133129.A1816@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> Reply-To: Stefan Esser Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Esser , Adrian Chadd , mckusick@mckusick.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200006220029.RAA97417@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000621223309.G47446@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <86g0q6gw5x.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> <20000622080509.A4065@enterprise.sanyusan.se> <20000622103045.F29036@zoe.bastard.co.uk> <20000622115426.H29036@zoe.bastard.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000622115426.H29036@zoe.bastard.co.uk>; from adrian@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 11:54:26AM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2000-06-22 11:54 +0200, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 10:30 AM +0200 2000/6/22, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > > I like this. Would anyone object if this was brought over from NetBSD ? > > > > If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine. > > Hmm, Kirk has valid points for leaving a softupdates filesystem identified > by tunefs and not a mount option. I do remember the discussion that lead to the requirement to enable soft-updates with tunefs -n. But I do not remember, why the soft-updates state could not be just set in the local copy of the super-block and flushed to disk when the file system is marked dirty ? Just before a clean file system is to be mounted R/W, it is obviously safe to modify the soft-updates state. The file system must have been cleaned before, or the R/W mount will not be possible (extra logic can prevent the modification of the MNT_SOFTDEP bit if a mount of a non-clean partition is forced, in order to preserve the soft-updates state for the next fsck run). If the kernel was compiled without soft-updates, it may be the right thing to keep MNT_SOFTDEP cleared, to not mislead FSCK ... Did I miss something obvious ? Regards, STefan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message