From: Kalpak Shah Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Multiple mount protection Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 02:28:33 +0530 Message-ID: <1180558715.3949.3.camel@garfield> References: <1179777153.3910.13.camel@garfield> <20070525143957.GA12669@thunk.org> <1180128981.3916.13.camel@garfield> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4 , Andreas Dilger To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:40844 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754765AbXE3Uy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 16:54:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1180128981.3916.13.camel@garfield> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 03:06 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > Hi Ted, > > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:39 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > Hi Kalpak, > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > > It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem > > > by adding similar logic to ext2fs_open(). > > > > Your patch didn't add this logic to ext2fs_open(); it just reserved > > the space in the superblock. > > Yeah the earlier patch for just reserving the fields. > > > > > I don't mind reserving the space so we don't have to worry about > > conflicting superblock uses, but I'm still on the fence about actually > > adding this functionality (a) into e2fsprogs, and (b) into the ext4 > > kernel code. I guess it depends on how complicated/icky the > > implementation code is, I guess. > Hi Ted, So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the patches go into ext4? I had attached the patches in the last mail so you can share your views on them. Thanks, Kalpak.