From: Alexey Fisher <bug-track@fisher-privat.net>
Subject: norecovery option for ext3
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:26:53 +0100
Message-ID: <1258961213.3526.7.camel@zwerg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org


> On Fri 20-11-09 11:56:15, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On 2009-11-20, at 07:46, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> Jan Kara wrote:
> > >>>  I've tried to test noload/norecovery option of ext3 and I've found
> > >>> it simply does not work. The filesystem does not even mount.
> > > 
> > >>>  Given that nobody used the option (OK, some googling shows that
> > >>> somebody tried to use it in *2.4.9* kernel and it didn't work even
> > >>> there - Stephen Tweedie comments that it's an obsolete option meant
> > >>> for use during fs development) and seeing how badly corrupted the
> > >>> filesystem is when you don't replay the journal, I'd just remove the
> > >>> option. Any opinions?
> > >>
> > >> Oh, sigh.  Sorry, didn't actually, er, test it, since I was just
> > >> adding an alias for the option... bleah.
> > >>
> > >> I think we should fix it; there are cases when you may want to mount
> > >> that way, I think - for example, otherwise there is no way at all to
> > >> mounta block device which is marked readonly...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Won't this require implementing "no journal" mode for ext3?  Seems like
> > > a lot of effort, when ext4 does the same thing (i.e. they could just
> > > mount the filesystem "-t ext4 -o norecovery" if they really, really need
> > > to do that).
> > 
> > I don't see why it would need nojournal mode; you'd have to:
> > 
> > mount -o ro,norecovery
> > 
> > anyway, and if it's ro the journal should be non-operational anyway right?
> > 
> > (Jan, did you mount -o norecovery or -o ro,norecovery in your tests?)
>   Actually, just -o norecovery but after the oops I've looked at the code
> and concluded that -o ro won't help the oops anyway... But yes, fixing the
> code in read-only mode should be possible.
> 
> 									Honza

How about making norecovery be "ronorecovery,ro". So you need to set only one option, I think it will make some people (like me) happy.
No body wont to use "norecovery,rw" except for some suicide reasons.

regards,
	Alexey