On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:08 +0100, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
> > > It's intentionally not umounted. Ntfsresize __rewrites__ NTFS and it's
> > > dangerous to umount because that could interfer, corrupt or destroy the
> > > resized, consistent NTFS.
> >
> > Do you not keep the "ntfs_volume" of the mount consistent with your
> > changes? If yes you should umount and it is not dangerous. If not why
> > not?
>
> There are two NTFS during resizing. The original and the resized. When
> the resizing is over then the latter is consistent and the old one is
> irrelevant. ntfsresize doesn't work like the other utilities: mount, modify,
> umount. It works like: mount and morph the original into a new one.
Looking at the source code, you appear to be holding the ntfs_volume in
your "resize" structure and then use it everywhere to write to the
volume.
For example you keep calling write_mft_record() which just calls the
libntfs provided ntfs_mft_record_write()...
So you better have that ntfs_volume be a consistent view of the volume
at any point in time or things will break anyway...
I cannot see anywhere you having two different ntfs_volume structures.
Apologies if I have missed it. Perhaps you can point out the code to me
where you have two volumes as I cannot see it...
However, given things still work, and given that ntfsresize now works
for Vista for me when it did not do so before I would say unmounting is
both safe and required for ntfsresize. (-;
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
