DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID;
  b=NCAN3LvYp4nWQiuipjCc47UDDgbzsY+b+SZQRHsDG52mc7JMybvAJ6+wXQTsREnVfVxOQx7+4MyGVVKsVHzToTpjZjlqIvDdS3573ccI5fJKEddWT1q84+NwJ7Z6zZhqEwO0YvB8m0Oobt5biHLi+90Xdvv4vCvGnjsJ8x+Pufo=;
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: gus3 <musicman529@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: MusicMan529@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: XFS noikeep remount in 2.6.27-rc1-next-20080730
To: Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jasper Bryant-Greene <jasper@amiton.co.nz>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
       util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20080805233956.GI21635@disturbed>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <510965.21937.qm@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1014
Lines: 18

--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:

> So what is the correct behaviour? Should the filesystem
> *silently
> ignore* unchangable options in the remount command, or
> should it
> fail the remount and warn the user that certain options are
> not
> allowed in remount?

How about a middle ground: ignore, but not silently? Report an error, or send it to the syslog, or both, but ultimately ignore unchangeable options, change what can be changed, and give the user/admin as much as possible.

This can be particularly pertinent for XFS root. If it's mounted RO at first, it may (will?) need to become RW at some later point. Failing the remount could result in a system that requires a rescue CD (or lots of headaches for remote administration).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/