Re: Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>]

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.

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@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html