From: Kalpak Shah Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Multiple mount protection Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:39:32 +0530 Message-ID: <1180645773.3922.8.camel@garfield> References: <1179777153.3910.13.camel@garfield> <20070525143957.GA12669@thunk.org> <1180128981.3916.13.camel@garfield> <1180558715.3949.3.camel@garfield> <20070531161627.GE19088@thunk.org> 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]:47982 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751537AbXEaVF5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 17:05:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070531161627.GE19088@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:16 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:33AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > > > 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. > > Yes, i've reserved the code point and superblock fields. Thanks. > I'm not going to add INCOMPAT_MMP flag to the supported file until I get and > integrate the patch ext2fs_open() that actually tests for the flag, > though, since that would be a bit silly. > > I assume the patch will add a flag to ext2fs_open which skips the MMP > checking. Yes I have added a EXT2_FLAG_SKIP_MMP flag to ext2fs_open() to bypass MMP which will be set if tunefs is used with -f option. Also MMP check will not be run if the filesystem is being opened readonly. Thanks, Kalpak. > After all, tune2fs is allowed to make changes to the > superblock while the filesystem is mounted. So it needs to be able to > open the filesystem read/only even if it is mounted. > > Regards, > > - Ted