[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110126105139.GJ12520@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:51:39 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
tytso@....edu, shli@...nel.org, neilb@...e.de,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, snitzer@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kmannth@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, rwheeler@...hat.com, hch@....de,
josef@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Deprecate barrier= and nobarrier mount
options
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:47:34AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Ted should have a final word about this but I believe it's possible to
> deprecate the mount options. Maybe with some transition period where
> deprecation message is shown but the option actually still works. That
> being said I'm not sure what we should do when someone has a disk with two
> partitions and one partition is mounted with barriers and another one
> without them - sure, one has to think hard to find a sane use case for this
> (possibly if user does not care about data after a crash on one of the
> partitions, in which case he should probably use nojournal mode) but it
> should probably work.
The policy can be made per-bdev (which maps to per-partition), so I
don't think that's a big problem.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists