From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759502AbXGPFS1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:18:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751645AbXGPFST (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:18:19 -0400 Received: from alnrmhc16.comcast.net ([204.127.225.96]:52501 "EHLO alnrmhc16.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751288AbXGPFSS (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:18:18 -0400 From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard To: david@lang.hm Cc: Alan Stern , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Huang\, Ying" , Kyle Moffett , Nigel Cunningham , Pavel Machek , pm list , Al Boldi Subject: Re: Hibernation considerations References: X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:18:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Sun\, 15 Jul 2007 16\:53\:47 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: <87wsx1ylig.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org david@lang.hm writes: [snip] >> Isn't is possible to avoid this problem by mounting an ext3 filesystem >> as readonly ext2? Provided the filesystem isn't dirty it should be >> doable. (And provided the filesystem doesn't use any ext3 extensions >> that are incompatible with ext2.) > from the last discussion I saw on the kernel mailing list, no. the act of > mounting the ext3 filesystem as ext2 read-only will change it as the unsupported > extentions get turned off (and I think the journal contents at least are lost as > part of this) The fact of the matter is that it really doesn't matter whether mounting it read-only actually corrupts the data on disk or not. Regardless, it should not be done, because you are accessing a dirty filesystem that is still in use, and consequently there are no guarantees that either the metadata or the file contents are consistent. It isn't necessary for hibernation to be able to access mounted partitions anyway. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard