xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS noikeep remount in 2.6.27-rc1-next-20080730

To: Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS noikeep remount in 2.6.27-rc1-next-20080730
From: gus3 <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Jasper Bryant-Greene <jasper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, util-linux-ng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=NCAN3LvYp4nWQiuipjCc47UDDgbzsY+b+SZQRHsDG52mc7JMybvAJ6+wXQTsREnVfVxOQx7+4MyGVVKsVHzToTpjZjlqIvDdS3573ccI5fJKEddWT1q84+NwJ7Z6zZhqEwO0YvB8m0Oobt5biHLi+90Xdvv4vCvGnjsJ8x+Pufo=;
In-reply-to: <20080805233956.GI21635@disturbed>
Reply-to: MusicMan529@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So what is the correct behaviour? Should the filesystem
> *silently
> ignore* unchangable options in the remount command, or
> should it
> fail the remount and warn the user that certain options are
> not
> allowed in remount?

How about a middle ground: ignore, but not silently? Report an error, or send 
it to the syslog, or both, but ultimately ignore unchangeable options, change 
what can be changed, and give the user/admin as much as possible.

This can be particularly pertinent for XFS root. If it's mounted RO at first, 
it may (will?) need to become RW at some later point. Failing the remount could 
result in a system that requires a rescue CD (or lots of headaches for remote 
administration).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>