On Fri 20-11-09 11:56:15, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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?) Actually, just -o norecovery but after the oops I've looked at the code and concluded that -o ro won't help the oops anyway... But yes, fixing the code in read-only mode should be possible. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
