Hi Timo,
On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 15:59 +0100, Timo Schlüßler wrote:
> Remounting a HFSPlus filesystem read-only doesn't clear the "DIRTY"-flags
> (not HFSPLUS_VOL_UNMNT and HFSPLUS_VOL_INCNSTNT) correctly. Subsequent
> mounts then report a dirty filesystem and enforce a check before willing
> to mount it read-write again.
> Signed-off-by: Timo Schlüßler <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> --- linux/fs/hfsplus/super.c.orig 2015-11-22 20:11:25.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/fs/hfsplus/super.c 2015-11-22 20:14:38.000000000 +0100
> @@ -325,11 +325,12 @@ static int hfsplus_statfs(struct dentry
>
> static int hfsplus_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data)
> {
> + struct hfsplus_vh *vhdr = HFSPLUS_SB(sb)->s_vhdr;
> +
> sync_filesystem(sb);
> if ((*flags & MS_RDONLY) == (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> return 0;
> if (!(*flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> - struct hfsplus_vh *vhdr = HFSPLUS_SB(sb)->s_vhdr;
> int force = 0;
>
> if (!hfsplus_parse_options_remount(data, &force))
> @@ -352,6 +353,12 @@ static int hfsplus_remount(struct super_
> sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY;
> *flags |= MS_RDONLY;
> }
> + } else {
> + vhdr->modify_date = hfsp_now2mt();
> + vhdr->attributes |= cpu_to_be32(HFSPLUS_VOL_UNMNT);
> + vhdr->attributes &= cpu_to_be32(~HFSPLUS_VOL_INCNSTNT);
If you set HFSPLUS_VOL_UNMNT and clear HFSPLUS_VOL_INCNSTNT bits on
operation of remount in READ-ONLY state then you should do opposite
operation on remount in READ-WRITE state. But, as far as I can judge,
you've missed this change. Such modification should be in the same
patch.
> +
> + hfsplus_sync_fs(sb, 1);
Are you sure that hfsplus_sync_fs() should be called here? As far as I
can see, sync_filesystem() does it for you. What the reason for second
call? Or do I miss something?
Thanks,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
