...@freebsd.org]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:23 AM
To: Andrew Duane
Cc: Bruce Evans; freebsd...@freebsd.org; FreeBSD Hackers;
freebsd-s...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: retry mounting with ro when rw fails
on 08/04/2011 15:36 Andrew Duane said the following:
> What I was hoping to do was desig
on 08/04/2011 15:36 Andrew Duane said the following:
> What I was hoping to do was design a better mechanism for passing that R/O
> detection from the device to the filesystem code. Our implementation uses a
> platform sysctl that checks the incoming device name against some hardware or
> software
on 08/04/2011 15:20 Bruce Evans said the following:
> But the default behaviour is backwards, especially for read-mostly
> removable media. The default should be ro, possibly with an automagic
> upgrade to rw iff the media really needs to be written too. Writing
> timestamps for file system and i
@freebsd.org; Jeremy Chadwick; FreeBSD Hackers
Subject: Re: retry mounting with ro when rw fails
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 08/04/2011 03:00 Jeremy Chadwick said the following:
>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> As a generic q
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 08/04/2011 03:00 Jeremy Chadwick said the following:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
As a generic question / observation, maybe we should just
implement 'errors=remount-ro' (or a reasonable facsimile) like Linux
has
on 07/04/2011 23:20 Garrett Cooper said the following:
>
> As a generic question / observation, maybe we should just
> implement 'errors=remount-ro' (or a reasonable facsimile) like Linux
> has in our mount(8) command? Doesn't look like NetBSD, OpenBSD, or
> [Open]Solaris sported similar funct
on 08/04/2011 05:16 Garrett Cooper said the following:
> Yeah. It seems like something else like EINVAL (just an example --
> probably a bad one) would be better. Also, please be careful as
> returning ENODEV seems to be UFS-specific:
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.
See intro(2) o
on 08/04/2011 03:00 Jeremy Chadwick said the following:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>
>>> [sorry for double post, it should have been "hackers" not "hardware"]
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>> could you please review
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> >
>> > [sorry for double post, it should have been "hackers" not "hardware"]
>> >
>> > Guys,
>> > could you please re
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >
> > [sorry for double post, it should have been "hackers" not "hardware"]
> >
> > Guys,
> > could you please review and comment on the following patch?
> > http://people.freeb
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> [sorry for double post, it should have been "hackers" not "hardware"]
>
> Guys,
> could you please review and comment on the following patch?
> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/mount-retry-ro.diff
> Thank you!
>
> The patch consists of two par
[sorry for double post, it should have been "hackers" not "hardware"]
Guys,
could you please review and comment on the following patch?
http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/mount-retry-ro.diff
Thank you!
The patch consists of two parts.
The first part is in CAM/SCSI to make sure that ENODEV is consis
12 matches
Mail list logo
