On Mon 2012-09-10 12:33:45, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:11:48AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better if the root filesystem was marked as > > non-removable in the device tree - or in the case of a truly removable > > card, just marked in the MMC subsystem - and the MMC subsystem skipped > > the "it could be removed" for suspend/resume operations? > > I agree, this makes a lot of sense. If the root file system > disappears, you're toasted either way, so it's fair to assume that the > device on which the root file system is located should is > non-removable. I'm not sure I agree. If you treat root fs as removable, you'll get "crash". You'll need to replay the journal, but data is safe. If you treat it as non-removable, and someone manages to remove it, mount, and reinsert, you'll get silent data corruption. If the card is not removable, mark it as such... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
