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

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Hugo Mills posted on Wed, 02 Dec 2015 23:51:55 +0000 as excerpted:

> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:40:08AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

I want the bikeshed green with black polkadots! =:^)

More seriously, ro-noreplay ?

As Hugo says, norecovery clashes with the recovery option we already 
have, so unless we _really_ want to maintain cross-filesystem mount 
option compatibility, that's not going to work.

I'm not sure we want to encourage thinking of it as a log, since it's not 
a log in the journalling-filesystem sense but much more limited.

And I think ro needs to be in there for clarity.

hard-ro strikes my fancy as well, but ro-noreplay seems clearer to me.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman