From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Fasheh Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:34:43 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 15/15] ocfs2: Add incompatible flag for extended attribute v2 In-Reply-To: <20080710232228.GE11809@mail.oracle.com> References: <48648B3E.6050808@oracle.com> <1214551656-22529-1-git-send-email-tiger.yang@oracle.com> <1214551656-22529-2-git-send-email-tiger.yang@oracle.com> <1214551656-22529-3-git-send-email-tiger.yang@oracle.com> <20080710230002.GA32459@wotan.suse.de> <20080710232228.GE11809@mail.oracle.com> Message-ID: <20080710233443.GD32459@wotan.suse.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 04:22:28PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > Actually, why does ro recover orphans? That strikes me as > beyond the bounds of RO. Replaying the journal is different, because it > is required for functional consistency. A RO mount doesn't need to > allocate, so it wouldn't worry about unrecovered orphans. Maybe it doesn't? I'm just going by memory. Unfortunately, I don't think we scan the orphan dir unless the dirty flag on the journal is set, so if they don't get recovered then... > Of course, we already have versions in the wild that recover > orphans in RO mode, so perhaps the question is moot. True, that. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh