Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 15:19:03 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUJ update Message-ID: <20100503.151903.74740368.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100503.151903.74740368.sthaug>