From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m764Wc04020419 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:32:38 -0700 Received: from web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with SMTP id 59E6E362848 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.163.178.168]) by cuda.sgi.com with SMTP id XJSVaaALqU54sPWi for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT) From: gus3 Reply-To: MusicMan529@yahoo.com Subject: Re: XFS noikeep remount in 2.6.27-rc1-next-20080730 In-Reply-To: <20080805233956.GI21635@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <510965.21937.qm@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Karel Zak , Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jasper Bryant-Greene , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org --- On Tue, 8/5/08, Dave Chinner wrote: > So what is the correct behaviour? Should the filesystem > *silently > ignore* unchangable options in the remount command, or > should it > fail the remount and warn the user that certain options are > not > allowed in remount? How about a middle ground: ignore, but not silently? Report an error, or send it to the syslog, or both, but ultimately ignore unchangeable options, change what can be changed, and give the user/admin as much as possible. This can be particularly pertinent for XFS root. If it's mounted RO at first, it may (will?) need to become RW at some later point. Failing the remount could result in a system that requires a rescue CD (or lots of headaches for remote administration).