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

[Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1614 bytes --]

On 2015-12-02 18:51, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:40:08AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/03/2015 06:48 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 12/2/15 11:48 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a side note, do either XFS or ext4 support removing the norecovery
>>>> option from the mount flags through mount -o remount?  Even if they
>>>> don't, that might be a nice feature to have in BTRFS if we can safely
>>>> support it.
>>>
>>> It's not remountable today on xfs:
>>>
>>>          /* ro -> rw */
>>>          if ((mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY) && !(*flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
>>>                  if (mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_NORECOVERY) {
>>>                          xfs_warn(mp,
>>>                  "ro->rw transition prohibited on norecovery mount");
>>>                          return -EINVAL;
>>>                  }
>>>
>>> not sure about ext4.
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>
>> Not remountable is very good to implement it.
>> Makes things super easy to do.
>>
>> Or we will need to add log replay for remount time.
>>
>> I'd like to implement it first for non-remountable case as a try.
>> And for the option name, I prefer something like "notreereplay", but
>> I don't consider it the best one yet....
>
>     Thinking out loud...
>
> no-log-replay, no-log, hard-ro, ro-log,
> really-read-only-i-mean-it-this-time-honest-guvnor
>
> Delete hyphens at your pleasure.
>
Personally, I think no-log-replay (with or without hyphens) is the most 
concise option name.  With something like this, it should be as clear as 
possible what is being done.



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3019 bytes --]