Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 14:12:30 -0500 (EST) From: Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.columbia.edu> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@flamingo.McKusick.COM> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, fs@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Subject: Re: changing mount options still can cause damage? Message-ID: <200003051912.OAA01726@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:34:00 PST." <200003041934.LAA16343@flamingo.McKusick.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200003041934.LAA16343@flamingo.McKusick.COM>, Kirk McKusick writes:
[...]
> just as it would for a file open for writing). This seems
> a slightly odd semantic for a file open for reading, so I
> have not done it. Does anyone have any views on whether the
> filesystem should be changed in this way on forcible
> downgrades?
>
> Kirk
Traditionally Unix file systems had all kind of odd semantics, but were
considered reliable and stable. So *if* I had to choose b/t adding some odd
semantics and keeping the f/s clean, I'd go for cleanliness.
If, however, there is no clear winning option, then the next best thing
would be to do one of the following:
(1) add a new mount flag that can select among the choices. This option
could be added to the mount(2) when it's doing a remount. We can select
some default behavior for the flag, and let users turn it off if they
want.
(2) print some console message from there kernel upon remount, warning of
any known open+unlinked files.
BTW, can one remount read-only a f/s that's already remounted read-only?
One (true hack) might be to keep the current remount semantics the same,
but change them upon a second read-only remount.
Erez.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003051912.OAA01726>