On May 3, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting sthaug_at_nethelp.no (from Sun, 02 May 2010 07:38:57 +0200 (CEST)): > >>> > When you disable journaling it also disables soft-updates. You need to >>> > re-enable it. I could decouple this. It's hard to say which is the POLA. >>> >>> I would vote for decoupling. If I have SU on, then enable journaling, >>> then disable journaling, I would expect SU to still be on. >> >> Fully agreed. I see no reason why these sould be coupled. > > It does not look like it is a prerequisite to have SU enabled when you want to enable SUJ. So I assume SUJ implies SU, and as such I think you can agree that it is not easy to determine at disable time of SUJ, if the FS was SU before or not. How about returning an error message instead of implicitly enabling SU with journaling? Something like "Soft updates must be in use for journaling to be enabled. Please see the -n option." That would keep the actions independent for both enabling and disabling. Just an idea. (Not trying to bike shed...) - BenReceived on Mon May 03 2010 - 10:56:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:03 UTC