From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Fedyk Subject: Re: Default to read-only on snapshot creation and have a flag if snapshot should be writable (was: [PATCH 0/5] btrfs: Readonly snapshots) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:08:45 -0800 Message-ID: References: <4CF40FE4.2030801@prnet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: David Arendt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4CF40FE4.2030801@prnet.org> List-ID: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:41 PM, David Arendt wrote: > On 11/29/10 21:02, Mike Fedyk wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Li Zefan =C2=A0= wrote: >>> >>> (Cc: Sage Weil =C2=A0for changes in async snapsh= ots) >>> >>> This patchset adds readonly-snapshots support. You can create a >>> readonly snapshot, and you can also set a snapshot readonly/writabl= e >>> on the fly. >>> >>> A few readonly checks are added in setattr, permission, remove_xatt= r >>> and set_xattr callbacks, as well as in some ioctls. >>> >> Great work! >> >> I have a suggestion on defaults when snapshots are created. =C2=A0I = think >> they should default to being read-only and if they are meant to be >> read-write a flag can be set at creation time (and changable at a >> later time as well of course). >> >> This way user/admin preconceptions of a snapshot being read-only can >> be enforced by default, and the exception when you want a read-write >> snapshot can be available with a switch at the cli level (and probab= ly >> a flag at the ioctl level). >> >> It gives one more natural distinction between a snapshot and a >> subvolume at the user conceptual level. >> >> What do you think? >> > I completely agree with you. I think lots of people use snapshots for= backup > purposes and these ones shouldn't be writable. > =2E... by default. -- 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