From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 3 13:19:05 2010 Return-Path: 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 DEF491065672 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 13:19:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26B848FC1B for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 13:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 22486 invoked from network); 3 May 2010 13:19:03 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 3 May 2010 13:19:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 15:19:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20100503.151903.74740368.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: current@freebsd.org From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: <20100503140438.262539xlm87yp0ao@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <4BDCE05A.5020307@FreeBSD.org> <20100502.073857.74726756.sthaug@nethelp.no> <20100503140438.262539xlm87yp0ao@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 13:19:05 -0000 > >> I would vote for decoupling. If I have SU on, then enable journaling, > >> then disable journaling, I would expect SU to still be on. > > > > Fully agreed. I see no reason why these sould be coupled. > > 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. If SUJ requires SU then IMHO tunefs should prohibit setting SUJ unless SU was already enabled, with a nice explanatory error message if needed. Looking at it from a slightly different angle - assume I have a file system with SU enabled, and I want to experiment with SUJ. So I enable SUJ. When I'm finished testing, maybe I want to disable SUJ again. I would be *highly surprised* (badly breaking POLA) if SU was disabled at the same time. > So whatever the consensus is (disabling SUJ does or dosn't enable SU), > the man page needs to tell what it does. Agreed. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no