From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryusuke Konishi Subject: Re: pp (protection period) mount option Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:44:22 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20091202.004422.69931110.ryusuke@osrg.net> References: <4B0FE052.70307@unity-linux.org> <20091128.012303.54434171.ryusuke@osrg.net> <749598c60911281316i40b591b1hcb055b0867617f0e@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <749598c60911281316i40b591b1hcb055b0867617f0e-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: david-0RIiUExYzkzCfDggNXIi3w@public.gmane.org Cc: users-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Hi, On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:16:31 +0100, David Smid wrote: > Thanks you for your valuable comments. > > You are right, of course. No kernel code changes are needed. > Here is my take #2. > > David Thank you, David. I reviewed the patch in detail, and no worrisome point found. During tests, I noticed that remount doesn't work for this option: For instance, after doing # mount -t nilfs2 -o pp=3D600 /dev/sdb1 /test and # mount -t nilfs2 -o remount,pp=3D400 /dev/sdb1 /test then, a cleanerd with "-p 600" was still working. I think usually this doesn't make trouble, but I'd like to hear your opinion before merging. If you want to revise the issue to keep semantics of remount option, I will wait for you. If you don't care, I will merge the patch as is. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi