Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:08:48 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUJ and "mount" reporting Message-ID: <htvuap$f3j$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20100531002417.R96912@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005171616390.1398@desktop> <htutrv$cu$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100531002417.R96912@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/31/10 02:25, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> Shouldn't SU+J be visible in the output of "mount" somehow? I've just >> enabled it on a root file system of a machine and while tunefs and >> dumpfs report both soft-updates and SUJ are enabled (after reboot), >> the "mount" command only shows "soft-updates". Alternative question: >> how to verify is it active on a live file system? >> >> (running CURRENT from a few hours ago, kernel&world synced) > > As previously stated - this is a hack to do what I think you are > asking for: > http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20100309-03-mount.diff Yes, this looks like it... > Using tunefs, etc. for now would be better. I did use tunefs, as I've said, but I'm concerned what would happen (if it can - stale kernel?) if the superblock that tunefs reads from the disk and the kernel state are different.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?htvuap$f3j$1>