From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May  3 12:56:52 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6896F106566C
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 May 2010 12:56:52 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ben@wanderview.com)
Received: from mail.wanderview.com (mail.wanderview.com [66.92.166.102])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103B58FC0C
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 May 2010 12:56:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.109] (portal.theptrgroup.com [71.178.251.28])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mail.wanderview.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o43CueZ7034890
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
	Mon, 3 May 2010 12:56:46 GMT (envelope-from ben@wanderview.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ben Kelly <ben@wanderview.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100503140438.262539xlm87yp0ao@webmail.leidinger.net>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 08:56:34 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0AEFFD03-75FC-4AF0-A42E-468B6420D183@wanderview.com>
References: <20100501222130.GA25044@muon.cran.org.uk>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005011509480.1398@desktop>
	<4BDCE05A.5020307@FreeBSD.org>
	<20100502.073857.74726756.sthaug@nethelp.no>
	<20100503140438.262539xlm87yp0ao@webmail.leidinger.net>
To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-Spam-Score: 0 () 
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.76.20.1
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SUJ update
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 12:56:52 -0000


On May 3, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:

> Quoting sthaug@nethelp.no (from Sun, 02 May 2010 07:38:57 +0200 =
(CEST)):
>=20
>>> > When you disable journaling it also disables soft-updates.  You =
need to
>>> > re-enable it.  I could decouple this.  It's hard to say which is =
the POLA.
>>>=20
>>> I would vote for decoupling. If I have SU on, then enable =
journaling,
>>> then disable journaling, I would expect SU to still be on.
>>=20
>> Fully agreed. I see no reason why these sould be coupled.
>=20
> It does not look like it is a prerequisite to have SU enabled when you =
want to enable SUJ. So I assume SUJ implies SU, and as such I think you =
can agree that it is not easy to determine at disable time of SUJ, if =
the FS was SU before or not.

How about returning an error message instead of implicitly enabling SU =
with journaling?  Something like "Soft updates must be in use for =
journaling to be enabled.  Please see the -n option."  That would keep =
the actions independent for both enabling and disabling.

Just an idea.  (Not trying to bike shed...)

- Ben=