Re: SUJ update

On 05/03/10 06:19, sthaug_at_nethelp.no wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> If SUJ requires SU then IMHO tunefs should prohibit setting SUJ unless
> SU was already enabled, with a nice explanatory error message if needed.

I agree, although I think it should be possible to specify both on the
same command line. At that point however the user would know what they
did, so they should be able to undo it appropriately.

I also don't want to bikeshed this to death. I imagine that once the
feature is stable that users will just twiddle it once and then leave it
alone, or it will be set at install time and then not twiddled at all. :)

> Looking at it from a slightly different angle - assume I have a file
> system with SU enabled, and I want to experiment with SUJ. So I enable
> SUJ. When I'm finished testing, maybe I want to disable SUJ again. I
> would be *highly surprised* (badly breaking POLA) if SU was disabled
> at the same time.
> 
>> So whatever the consensus is (disabling SUJ does or dosn't enable SU),  
>> the man page needs to tell what it does.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug_at_nethelp.no
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
> 



-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/