On 12/2/15 3:23 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/12/02 17:06 +0800:
>>
>>
>> Russell Coker wrote on 2015/12/02 17:25 +1100:
>>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 06:05:09 AM Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> yes, xfs does; we have "-o norecovery" if you don't want that, or need
>>>> to mount a filesystem with a dirty log on a readonly device.
>>>
>>> That option also works with Ext3/4 so it seems to be a standard way of
>>> dealing
>>> with this. I think that BTRFS should do what Ext3/4 and XFS do in this
>>> regard.
>>>
>> BTW, does -o norecovery implies -o ro?
>>
>> If not, how does it keep the filesystem consistent?
>>
>> I'd like to follow that ext2/xfs behavior, but I'm not familiar with
>> those filesystems.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu
>>
>
> OK, norecovery implies ro.
For XFS, it doesn't imply it, it requires it; i.e. both must be stated explicitly:
/*
* no recovery flag requires a read-only mount
*/
if ((mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_NORECOVERY) &&
!(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) {
xfs_warn(mp, "no-recovery mounts must be read-only.");
return -EINVAL;
}
ext4 is the same, I believe:
} else if (test_opt(sb, NOLOAD) && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) &&
ext4_has_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb)) {
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "required journal recovery "
"suppressed and not mounted read-only");
goto failed_mount_wq;
so if you'd like btrfs to be consistent with these, I would not make
norecovery imply ro; rather, make I would make it require an explicit ro, i.e.
mount -o ro,norecovery
-Eric
> So I think it's possible to do the same thing for btrfs.
> I'll try to do it soon.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
