On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 26 May 2010 7:56:24 pm Garrett Cooper wrote: >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Marcelo/Porks <marcelorossi_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi guys. I'm not sure if I could call this a problem but I can disable >> > SU when SUJ is enabled, so SUJ will remain enabled and SU will be >> > disabled. >> > >> > #tunefs -j enable /dev/device >> > #tunefs -n disable /dev/device >> > >> > I did a patch for sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c that disable SUJ when the user >> > disable SU. Maybe this will be useful for some of you. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > Index: sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c >> > =================================================================== >> > --- sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c (revision 208580) >> > +++ sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c (working copy) >> > _at__at_ -460,6 +460,14 _at__at_ >> > if ((~sblock.fs_flags & FS_DOSOFTDEP) == > FS_DOSOFTDEP) >> > warnx("%s remains unchanged as disabled", > name); >> > else { >> > + /* also disable SUJ */ >> > + if ((sblock.fs_flags & FS_SUJ) == FS_SUJ) > { >> > + warnx("soft updates journaling >> > will be disabled too"); >> > + journal_clear(); >> > + sblock.fs_flags &= ~FS_SUJ; >> > + sblock.fs_sujfree = 0; >> > + warnx("remove .sujournal to >> > reclaim space"); >> > + } >> > sblock.fs_flags &= ~FS_DOSOFTDEP; >> > warnx("%s cleared", name); >> > } >> > I think that attempting to disable SU if SUJ > is enabled should just fail with an error message. The sysadmin can then > choose to disable both SUJ and SU if desired. If SU is disabled and One tries to enable SUJ then SU will be automatically enabled. So Why not automatically disable SUJ when One tries to disable SU? -- Marcelo Rossi "This e-mail is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights."Received on Thu May 27 2010 - 12:14:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:03 UTC