|
From: Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...> - 2004-04-15 22:55:23
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
[ ... great analyzis ... ]
> I think the significance of flag bit 2 is pretty clear now. Now we just
> need to give the flag a name. (-: Perhaps RESTART_VOLUME_IS_CLEAN?
Whatever :) The hardest part is done :)
> > > We can always provide a force option for ignoring the fact that
> > > we think the journal is dirty. Without the force we just work
> > > read-only.
> >
> > I even don't like the "force" option in these cases:
> >
[...]
> > Solution is very easy. No such option, no such problems. If one doesn't
> > like it, he can modify the available, free source code and shot himself in
> > the foot. Such fun definitely deserves some extra work ;)
>
> Not sure I agree, e.g. we should at least have a "force_but_then_readonly"
With that I agree.
> option because we may be overzealous with our checks and we may be
> flagging perfectly clean ntfs as dirty and user might want to mount the
> volume anyway. Also perhaps the user wants to recover data from a damaged
> volume. In that case cannot expect a clean fs.
Yes, I think other sane filesystems do the same. If it's dirty then only
fsck, journal reply or [forced] read-only mount are possible.
Szaka
|
