Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 08:56:34 -0400 From: Ben Kelly <ben@wanderview.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUJ update Message-ID: <0AEFFD03-75FC-4AF0-A42E-468B6420D183@wanderview.com> In-Reply-To: <20100503140438.262539xlm87yp0ao@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20100501222130.GA25044@muon.cran.org.uk> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005011509480.1398@desktop> <4BDCE05A.5020307@FreeBSD.org> <20100502.073857.74726756.sthaug@nethelp.no> <20100503140438.262539xlm87yp0ao@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 3, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting sthaug@nethelp.no (from Sun, 02 May 2010 07:38:57 +0200 = (CEST)): >=20 >>> > When you disable journaling it also disables soft-updates. You = need to >>> > re-enable it. I could decouple this. It's hard to say which is = the POLA. >>>=20 >>> I would vote for decoupling. If I have SU on, then enable = journaling, >>> then disable journaling, I would expect SU to still be on. >>=20 >> Fully agreed. I see no reason why these sould be coupled. >=20 > It does not look like it is a prerequisite to have SU enabled when you = want to enable SUJ. So I assume SUJ implies SU, and as such I think you = can agree that it is not easy to determine at disable time of SUJ, if = the FS was SU before or not. How about returning an error message instead of implicitly enabling SU = with journaling? Something like "Soft updates must be in use for = journaling to be enabled. Please see the -n option." That would keep = the actions independent for both enabling and disabling. Just an idea. (Not trying to bike shed...) - Ben=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0AEFFD03-75FC-4AF0-A42E-468B6420D183>