Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2009-11-20, at 07:46, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Jan Kara wrote: >>> I've tried to test noload/norecovery option of ext3 and I've found >>> it simply does not work. The filesystem does not even mount. > >>> Given that nobody used the option (OK, some googling shows that >>> somebody tried to use it in *2.4.9* kernel and it didn't work even >>> there - Stephen Tweedie comments that it's an obsolete option meant >>> for use during fs development) and seeing how badly corrupted the >>> filesystem is when you don't replay the journal, I'd just remove the >>> option. Any opinions? >> >> Oh, sigh. Sorry, didn't actually, er, test it, since I was just >> adding an alias for the option... bleah. >> >> I think we should fix it; there are cases when you may want to mount >> that way, I think - for example, otherwise there is no way at all to >> mounta block device which is marked readonly... > > > Won't this require implementing "no journal" mode for ext3? Seems like > a lot of effort, when ext4 does the same thing (i.e. they could just > mount the filesystem "-t ext4 -o norecovery" if they really, really need > to do that). I don't see why it would need nojournal mode; you'd have to: mount -o ro,norecovery anyway, and if it's ro the journal should be non-operational anyway right? (Jan, did you mount -o norecovery or -o ro,norecovery in your tests?) -Eric > Cheers, Andreas > -- > Andreas Dilger > Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group > Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
