Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:23:49 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.ORG>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Anders Andersson <anders@sanyusan.se>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep.c Message-ID: <669.961737829@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:43:00 PDT." <20000622234300.2BB821CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20000622234300.2BB821CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au>, Peter Wemm writes : >Because fsck is supposed to be able to do things more intelligently when it >knows the *previous* mount state, not the current state. ie: if a disk was >last mounted in softupdates mode, fsck is supposed to do stuff differently >(possibly doing as little as a superblock cleanup and deferring the >lost-space recovery until much later). > >For the NetBSD version to work, what needs to happen is that the -osoftdep >flag needs to be propagated to the superblock so that after reboot, fsck >knows what to do. When it is next mounted, then update it to the new state. Right, but if mounting with -osoftdep, does what a "tunefs -n enable" does (and vice versa) fsck will have that knowledge and the tunefs step would be un-needed. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?669.961737829>