From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:55978 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897AbbLCGom (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 01:44:42 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a4Nd6-0007tc-DI for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:44:36 +0100 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:44:36 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:44:36 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20151128134634.GF24333@carfax.org.uk> <20151201190018.GD8918@ret.masoncoding.com> <565DEF65.4080900@redhat.com> <201512021725.32750.russell@coker.com.au> <565EB480.4010509@cn.fujitsu.com> <565EB878.9090501@cn.fujitsu.com> <565F2260.1080004@redhat.com> <565F2EF7.5000109@gmail.com> <565F753B.5020000@redhat.com> <565F8158.4090304@gmx.com> <20151202235155.GM8775@carfax.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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